Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (EIRE CITIZEN'S IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge as to whether Frank Ryan has now been released from imprisonment in Spain; and, if so, whether he has been able to leave that country?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The case of Mr. Ryan, who is a citizen of Eire, has been handled by the Eire Minister in Madrid. I understand that Mr. Ryan has been released from prison, but I have no information regarding his present whereabouts.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIENTSIN (BRITISH CONCESSION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the situation in the British Concession at Tientsin is now satisfactory and whether British subjects are able to pass between the Concession and the adjacent occupied area without interference?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in view of the fact that the status of Tangier is governed by an International Convention, that this Convention has been violated by the Spanish Government, and that His Majesty's Government have protested against this action, he will state what explanation the Spanish Government have given for this deliberate breach of an international agreement;
(2) whether he will inform the Spanish Government that, unless they conform to the Statute of Tangier, which they solemnly pledged themselves to uphold, His Majesty's Government, while reserving their freedom to take action at Tangier itself in defence of British interests and the sanctity of international engagements, will suspend the operation of the various economic and financial measures they have recently taken for the advantage and assistance of Spain?

Mr. Butler: I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.

Mr. Cocks: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman insists upon doing that. If he does, I will agree, but No. 10 seems to me to deal with a different matter.

Mr. Butler: I think it would be more convenient to answer the two Questions together. During his conversations with His Majesty's Ambassador, and in public, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs has given various explanations of the action of the Spanish Government. His principal claim has been that the situation at Tangier was potentially dangerous so long as several belligerent Powers were among those responsible for the control of the international Zone, and that therefore the Spanish action was necessary to safeguard not only Spanish interests but also the interests of peace. As the House has already been informed, His Majesty's Government, while reserving all their rights under the relevant instruments, have embarked on the negotiation of a provisional arrangement concerning British rights and interests in the Zone, pending a final settlement. The progress of the discussions with the Spanish Government gives grounds for hoping that a satisfactory provisional solution may be found. Meanwhile, I have nothing further to add in reply to the hon. Member's Questions.

Mr. Cocks: Does the first part of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole question of the international status of Tangier will stand over for a term of years, say, until after the war?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The situation remains as stated by my right hon. Friend last week, namely, that we have reserved


our rights, under the relevant instrument, and that, meanwhile, we are attempting to negotiate a provisional arrangement.

Mr. Cocks: Are we not going to press our rights at the present moment? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware by now of the folly of trying to appease Fascist dictators?

Mr. Butler: I think we have learned that all right. We want to negotiate a provisional arrangement about Tangier which will look after the rights of British citizens.

Mr. Mander: Is the question of the reinstatement of British subjects who have been dismissed from their posts included in the negotiations?

Mr. Butler: The whole question of the position of British subjects and of the officials concerned has been included in the negotiations.

Mr. Mander: In the meantime, are we feeding the Spaniards?

Mr. Butler: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "feeding the Spaniards."

Mr. Mander: Supplying wheat from America?

Mr. Butler: There has been a purchase made out of outstanding balances for wheat, and that has been paid for by Spain.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the proposed provisional arrangement prevent in the future such breaches of international law as the presence of Italian submarines in Tangier not long ago?

Mr. Butler: The question of the Italian submarines was cleared up. This agreement is to deal with the position in the Zone.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the issue of an increased number of free railway passes to flying officers and air crews?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir It

has now been decided that air crew personnel will, in future, be allowed a maximum of four free leave railway warrants a year. I am happy to add that this concession will apply also to flying instructors and to pupils at flying training establishments.

Mr. Stokes: Does that mean that station commanders will, at their discretion, in cases of stress, be allowed to go beyond four passes, if they think it necessary, or are they strictly limited to four passes only?

Captain Balfour: Hitherto, only two free railway warrants have been allowed, but the new regulation allows four. You must have a borderline somewhere, and the borderline is that station commanders will not have discretion to go beyond four.

Mr. Shinwell: Will this concession apply to the other Services?

Captain Balfour: I am speaking on behalf of my own Service, the Air Ministry. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put that Question to the appropriate Departments.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not undesirable that such concessions should be made for one Service and not relate to the others?

AIR TRAINING CORPS, BIRMINGHAM.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the measures he has taken for the organisation and expansion of the Air Training Corps in the Birmingham area; and whether he is satisfied with the response to the call for officers for the training of air defence cadet squadrons?

Captain Balfour: The organisation of the Air Training Corps is being pursued in Birmingham, as in other cities, with vigour and enthusiasm. The Lord Mayor is giving his valuable assistance to the local committee which is organising the squadrons, and he has assured the commandant of the Corps that the citizens of Birmingham will do all in their power to make the scheme a success. The response to the call for officers has been most encouraging Arrangements will be made for candidates to be interviewed as soon as possible.

Sir P. Hannon: Are we to understand from the reply of my hon. and gallant Friend that these Air Training Corps


units will get all the encouragement possible from the Air Ministry?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, indeed they will.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does this organisation include the training of attested airmen by officers?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a different matter altogether which is now in operation, and is the educational system within the Royal Air Force for men who do not come up to the requisite standard for air crews.

Mr. Mander: Does the Minister propose to issue a memorandum explaining the scheme for the information of Members of Parliament and others?

Captain Balfour: I propose to put in the Library a small booklet which is now being distributed through the Commandant of the Air Training Corps units and also a more detailed book, which will be available for distribution at the beginning of next week.

JAMAICA (REFUGEES).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many refugees from Nazi oppression are interned in Jamaica; whether they are detained in the same camp as known Nazi sympathisers whether their cases are being reviewed with a view to their release; and whether the policy of the Home Government as to such refugees is being applied in Jamaica?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The total number of enemy aliens interned in Jamaica, including such enemy aliens as have been transferred from other territories for internment in the Colony, and enemy merchant seamen, is approximately 950. Included in this number are 25 male and nine female Germans who were resident in Jamaica before the outbreak of war; all of these claim to be anti-Nazi and most of them have appealed against their detention. Of the 25 males, all of whom are in one camp, 13 are Jewish, and these are partially segregated. Of the nine females, seven are Jewish and all are in one camp. The provision of completely segregated accommodation for

internees whose anti-Nazi sympathies are not open to doubt has been under consideration, but there are practical difficulties. As the hon. Member is aware, the Governor is now in this country for consultation in another connection, and it is proposed to discuss the whole question with him.

Mr. Silverman: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether any steps will be taken to ensure that persons whose anti-Nazi sympathies are not open to question are not interned at all; and whether the policy of the Home Office in this country will be applied in Jamaica?

Mr. Hall: The Colonies are, of course, kept informed of the changes which are taking place in this country in connection with this matter. As I point out in the last paragraph of the reply, this matter is now being considered by the Governor, who is at present in this country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman urge upon the Governor in view of the very grave injustice of interning Nazis and anti-Nazis together, that, if internment must be carried out, there should, at least, be effective separation, and that the practical difficulties should be overcome?

Mr. Hall: There is very little difficulty with regard to the Jamaicans, or those who were resident in Jamaica before the outbreak of the war. My hon. Friend will however see the difficulty of discriminating, particularly among enemy seamen and others, because you must have some corroboration with regard to their political views, before you can take action. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being considered by the Governor.

WEST INDIES (WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the growing destitution and unemployment in large areas of the West Indies, it is intended to use part of the colonial welfare and development grant for remedial purposes, or what other steps are proposed or being instituted?

Mr. George Hall: This matter is at present under active consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Sir Stanley Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is likely to be a very large demand for West Indian labour in connection with the construction of United States bases?

WEST AFRICAN COCOA CROP.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as an alternative to burning again the West African cocoa crop, it has been decided to store or process upon the spot the second war-time crop for release after the war?

Mr. George Hall: Only very small quantities of last season's crop were destroyed. These were of a quality unsuitable for storage. The possibility is now being considered of storing surplus cocoa of good quality from this season's crop. Long-term storage accommodation already exists in West Africa for eight months' normal requirements of the European markets now cut off by the blockade.

Mr. Adams: Is there any notion of introducing machinery for processing the cocoa?

Mr. Hall: That matter is being considered, but there are practical difficulties. One of these difficulties, of course, is obtaining the necessary machinery for the purpose of processing, but all these matters are being considered.

Mr. Hannah: Could not some of this cocoa be brought to this country?

Mr. Hall: The difficulty with regard to the transport of cocoa is similar to that of the transport of many other commodities. It is the difficulty of shipping.

COLONIES (TAXATION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement indicating the amount of direct taxation imposed in each of the Colonial dependencies, and any changes which have taken place since the commencement of the war; and what relation direct taxation bears to indirect taxation and other sources of revenue in each of these territories?

Mr. George Hall: A statement is being prepared and will be circulated as soon as possible, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it will be somewhat long and will take some time to compile.

GAMBIA (GROUNDNUTS, PRICE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the producers of groundnuts in Gambia will receive an economic price for their crops in view of the price fixed by the recent Government decision; what steps are being taken to eliminate middlemen's profits and facilitate transport to the buying stations; and whether the unemployment and social conditions of the people in the Colony are receiving the particular attention of the Government?

Mr. George Hall: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative. I cannot agree that the entire elimination of middlemen's profits is desirable. The fixation of a uniform buying price for the whole season, and the steps taken to make this price known to all the farmers, will make it difficult for middlemen to obtain possession of groundnuts at a price out of relation to the real market price. I have no reason to believe that the marketing of all the nuts available is being prevented by lack of transport to buying stations. In one case, where the closing of a station caused hardship to growers, it was at once reopened. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative, except that I have received no reports of serious unemployment in the Gambia.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the agitation in the Colony about the price that is being offered, and the fact that profits will be made by those who are contributing very little or nothing to the Colony, and also in view of the difficulties with regard to transport, will the hon. Gentleman give this matter special consideration?

Mr. Hall: We have received no complaints at all with regard to this matter. The difficulty about the complete elimination of the middlemen is, of course, that they are part of a machine and you really cannot interfere with that at once. The price which is paid, I think, has given satisfaction to the producers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES AND CHARGES).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it is the practice of the railway companies to close the refreshment rooms on a large number of their stations on Sundays; and whether he can indicate the steps he proposes to take to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): In general, refreshment rooms are closed on Sundays only where there is not sufficient demand to justify their being kept open. In Scotland, however, it is the custom to keep refreshment rooms closed on Sundays in deference to public opinion. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any particular station or stations where, in his view, there is sufficient demand to justify the opening of refreshment rooms which are now closed on Sundays, I will see that the matter is considered.

Mr. Hall: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that if I supply such a list it will be a very long one; and, secondly, does he not agree that this idea of closing refreshment rooms on Sundays is now obsolete and that at almost every station people require refreshment in these days of slow trains?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: My hon. Friend will see from the next answer that I propose to deal with the matter in another way.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Minister bear in mind that an enormous army of soldiers has to travel from place to place and that in war-time there is a special consideration to be borne in mind?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The enormous army of soldiers would rather eat in the train than wander about the stations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that that is the difficulty, that the railway companies do not provide facilities on trains in war-time to the same extent as they do in peace-time?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to the next answer.

Sir William Davison: Will the Minister see whether there is a demand for these facilities?

Lieut. -Colonel Moore-Brabazon: If my hon. Friend listened to the answer he would notice that I said that the opening of the refreshment rooms is determined to a large extent by the demand.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company charge those using their tea cars 1s. 3d., including service, for two small fingers of toast, a biscuit, and a pot of tea; and whether, as this is excessive, both for troops and public, he will bring the matter to the notice of those concerned with a view to an alteration downwards in price?

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company charge 1s. 3d., including compulsory service charge of 3d., for afternoon tea in their restaurant cars, although this consists only of three small pieces of bread and butter, a biscuit and a pot of tea; and whether he will arrange for refreshments to be provided for the travelling public at more reasonable prices?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am advised that for the charge of 1s. a tea is served which consists of a pot of tea, bread and butter or toast or teacakes, and cake or biscuits. A second helping may be had on request. I do not think the charge is excessive. The additional charge of 3d. is in lieu of a tip and is charged on bills between 1s. and 2s. 6d. For members of the Forces, experiments are being made with mobile canteens installed in trains where tea and refreshments can be obtained at canteen prices; I have every reason to believe that these will be successful.

Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that while providing special facilities for troops is a good thing, the public themselves should have something far more reasonable?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am in a difficulty. If I provide something for the ordinary public I am accused of not looking after the troops, and if I provide something for the troops I am accused of not looking after the public. There is provision in passenger trains for


the ordinary passengers, and if the experiment is to be a success, as it obviously is, there will be two or three of these canteens in a train.

Mr. Thorne: Do the tips mentioned in the Minister's answer go to the attendants or to the railway company?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: They go to the attendant first.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say that the widest possible publicity will be given to the fact that additional helpings may be given without further charge?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not what the Minister refers to as a tip really a charge? Supposing it is refused, what can the railway company do?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I shall have to refer that question to the Attorney-General.

OMNIBUS SERVICE, WOLVERHAMPTON.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience through overcrowding caused to workers going to work on Wolverhampton omnibuses owing to the refusal of the town council to postpone the opening time of the schools from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m.; and whether he will take steps to see that the best possible use is made of the transport available?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a very strong feeling on this subject, and will he use his persuasive powers to the utmost?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am rather afraid that my hon. Friend is leading me up the garden.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the Minister do nothing to limit education in Wolverhampton?

NIGHT MOTORING.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that night motoring helps enemy raiders to population centres; that many chief constables are disturbed on this account; that many motorists do not observe lighting restrictions; that Germany has long since dealt

with the problem; and will he, with a view to conserving petrol, reducing deaths on the highway, and allaying public disquiet, reconsider his recent refusal to institute a curfew?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security and I see no reason to alter the view I previously expressed.

Mr. Leach: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that in at least three bombed cities the chief constables believe that the presence of night motorists has contributed heavily to the increased death roll, and that in at least one instance there has been doubt as to whether there would have been bombing at all if there had been no night motorists?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: It is very difficult for any of us to have expert information as to what does or does not give away information to the enemy. We have to abide by the information given to the Government by the appropriate authorities. It is no use for me or for my hon. Friend to hold strong views as to what does give away information. I am told by experts who fly over the country that information is not being given away, and that is as far as I can go.

Mr. Leach: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend consulted with the chief constables of the bombed cities to arrive at that conclusion?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: No; I have consulted everybody on the flying side.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I took observations on 14 separate occasions; that when I saw vivid lights on a certain main road it was bombed, when the cars were running about?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is rather like what people say about towns being bombed because of the presence of signals.

WORKERS' FACILITIES (NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will at once send a representative, who is able to understand the workpeople's needs, to inter-


view their representatives, where required, in the North Staffordshire area covered by the correspondence which has been sent to the Minister; is he aware of the urgent need for immediate action; has he considered the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke; and, in view of the fine tone of the workpeople's letter, what immediate action is to be taken to deal with the deplorable state of affairs?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: As I have informed my hon. Friend by letter, I sent an officer from headquarters to review the transport services for workers in North Staffordshire. All the representations and suggestions which have been made were carefully considered and steps, including review of the railway services, are being taken to relieve the congestion on the bus services at peak periods and to make the most advantageous use of the vehicles and drivers available.

Mr. Smith: It is evident that that is part of our difficulty, but the letter I received dealt with a different problem altogether. This Question deals with the whole North Staffordshire area in regard to which I stated a few weeks ago that I could not speak in public as to what the difficulty was, but that the Minister of Transport had been informed, and that it was time it was dealt with.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I understood that this was a question in which my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) was also interested.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have special inquiries made? This is not a question of inconvenience to the public so much as inconvenience to and restriction of production, both for export and also for munitions. It is a very serious matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: My hon. Friend knows that we are very active in this matter, so much so as to be expediting the improvement of the railway facilities. That is being brought forward by about two months.

Sir J. Lamb: But the trouble is the delay.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (MILITARY VEHICLES).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport what was

the percentage of road accidents in December in which military vehicles were involved; and whether the regulations for obscuring lights on cars applies to Army vehicles as well as to civilians?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: As regards the first part of this Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) and West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) on 22nd January. As regards the second part, a full statement was made on 17th December, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche), by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the military are driving carefully, and that no extra danger is caused by their vehicles?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) that I would go into this in an attempt to find out something about the rates of accidents as between the military and civilians. One set of figures has been sent to me from London. That, of course, is not the whole problem. I must relate these figures to the proportion of military traffic to civilian traffic, and I have not yet got figures in regard to that.

Sir P. Harris: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make clear to the War Office that military drivers must conform to the ordinary rules of the road and to the speed limit? There is an idea amongst Army drivers that they are privileged persons.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think the War Office have done their best to give instructions to drivers to the effect that they are not privileged persons.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in to-day's "Times" that they are collecting the facts and hope soon to give the appropriate figures on this subject; and will his department collaborate with the Society to insure a correct statement?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have seen the letter to which my hon. Friend refers.

THIRD CLASS RAILWAY PASSENGERS (FIRST CLASS CARRIAGES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during the rush hours at Liverpool Street, London and North Eastern Railway, suburban platform inspectors are on duty for the special purpose of preventing third-class passengers from entering first-class carriages, and that the doors of the latter are locked until just before the train leaves, notwithstanding the fact that the third-class carriages are overcrowded and the first-class carriages inadequately filled; and whether this procedure is in accord with the policy announced on 20th November, 1940?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The procedure is necessary to ensure that those who hold first-class tickets have first call on the available first-class accommodation. I see nothing in the procedure which is inconsistent with my announcement.

Mr. Parker: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a general feeling that there are far too many first-class carriages on the railway?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I do not know that; it depends on how many first-class travellers there are. We want to stop people holding third-class tickets going on to the platform and taking a first-class seat on the basis that the train will eventually be full. That is why the doors of first-class compartments are locked until a certain time, after which third-class passengers are allowed to enter.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that at King's Cross Station the practice followed is to keep first-class carriages locked the whole time, to have an inspector standing outside who unlocks them separately for each passenger who produces a first-class ticket, and that the consequence is that train after train leave King's Cross in the rush hours crowded to overflowing in the third-class carriages and half empty in the first-class carriages?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: They could percolate through the corridor, could they not?

Mr. Silverman: No, there is no corridor; they are separate carrages.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That would be against my instructions. I will look into the matter.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the third-class passengers are the people referred to by the Prime Minister as the "backbone of the nation"?

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (STAFF)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state, of those employed by his Ministry and in receipt of salaries of £600 a year and over, how many there are whose previous experience was acquired mainly in respect of railway transport, or road transport, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Of those employed by the Ministry in receipt of salaries of £600 a year and over, 21 were, before their appointment in this Department, associated with railway transport and 28 with road transport.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a widely held feeling that the interests of road transport are being sacrificed to those of rail transport, and the public looks to him to see that a reasonable balance is maintained?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the number of persons employed by his Ministry, temporarily or permanently, including regional traffic commissioners' organisations, in receipt of salaries of £350 a year or over?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The total number employed with salaries of £350 per annum and over is 666.

BROADCAST STATEMENT (MR. W. J. BROWN).

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister of Information, whether his attention has been drawn to a recent broadcast by Mr. W. J. Brown, in which an account was given of the intentions of the Germans towards the British people in the event of a German victory; and whether he will give an assurance that all such statements are carefully examined and checked?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir, I am aware of this talk, the script of which was submitted to the customary careful examination before delivery. All the statements made in it can be adequately substantiated.

Sir J. Lamb: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that by a vast majority of the public this is looked upon as having been one of the best and most valuable talks which have been given?

Mr. Logan: Could we get another contribution like it?

BOMBED AREAS (RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE).

Mr. Beechman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whether he is aware that land speculators are buying up sites in bombed areas, with a view to re-selling after the war to local authorities, who will need the land for social development; and whether he proposes taking any steps to check this practice?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): My Noble Friend has set up a Committee to make an expert examination of the subject of compensation and betterment, and has asked the Committee to advise, as a matter of urgency, on the particular question to which my hon. Friend refers.
The terms of reference of the Committee are as follow:
To make an objective analysis of the subject of the payment of compensation and recovery of betterment in respect of public control of the use of land:
To advise, as a matter of urgency, what steps should be taken now or before the end of the war to prevent the work of reconstruction thereafter being prejudiced. In this connection the Committee are asked to consider (a) possible means of stabilising the value of land required for development or re-development, and (b) any extension or modification of powers to enable such land to be acquired by the public on an equitable basis; to examine the merits and de-merits of the methods considered, and to advise what alterations of the existing law would be necessary to enable them to be adopted.
The Committee will consist of:—Mr. Justice Uthwatt (Chairman), Mr. F. R. Evershed, Mr. Gerald Eve, Mr. James Barr, Mr. James Wylie.
My Noble Friend trusts that it will be clear from the latter part of these terms

of reference that the Government do not intend that reconstruction after the war shall be hampered or prejudiced in any way by speculative transactions and other such individual operations carried out in advance.

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend and this Committee go too far in the way of paying compensation, will he consider bringing pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a tax on site values?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will steps be taken before this Committee reports to prevent speculation which may injure future development?

Mr. Loftus: Would my hon. Friend consider making a statement now that any land required by the Government or by a local authority after the war will not be purchased at a price in excess of the pre-war value?

Mr. Mander: Will the Committee have power to recommend retrospective action?

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, when considering post-war reconstruction, he has in mind the setting up of a national commission whose duties shall include the power to determine the use to which all land, rural and urban, shall be put; and whether, in view of the speculation in land which is now taking place, he will make an early statement on the subject?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The Government fully appreciate the importance of the question of the utilisation of land which vitally affects so many reconstruction problems. The matter is at present under the consideration of the Ministers responsible for the Departments concerned and it is not possible to say at present what form any further inquiries which may be necessary will take. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings to Question No.36.

Mr. Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this Committee which has been announced to-day will report from time to time to the House or to the Government, and will the report be available to hon. Members?

Mr. Greenwood: At this stage I cannot say. The intention of the Government in appointing this Committee is to enable it to formulate a policy to take action early with regard to land speculation. I cannot say, but I imagine the report will be published.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee will sit in public; and will it have power to take evidence on oath?

Mr. Greenwood: That, I cannot say. I should not think that it would sit in public, but I do not know. That Question might be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

REQUISITIONED HOTELS.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether there are still a number of vacant hotels in the reception areas which have been hitherto earmarked for the Civil Service; and whether, if they are not needed for that purpose, they could be used by His Majesty's Forces or by refugees from the bombed areas?

Mr. Hicks: The hotels taken over by the Ministry of Works and Buildings are either occupied by Government staffs or have been lent to the Service Departments for use by His Majesty's Forces. Certain premises have also been placed temporarily at the disposal of the Minister of Health.

Sir E. Cadogan: Does that mean that there are no vacant hotels?

Mr. Hicks: Only those which have been allocated.

RECEPTION AREAS (BILLETING NEEDS).

Sir E. Cadogan: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in a number of centres where His Majesty's Forces and civil servants are billeted, accommodation is inadequate in view of the fact that self-evacuees have appropriated the greater part of the accommodation available; and whether he will exercise more effective control over billeting arrangements so that those who have no object in occupying these centres

except their own security should be ejected in favour of those who are engaged upon war service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend is aware that large numbers of persons who do not need to remain in the evacuation areas in the national interest have adopted the suggestion of the Government and made their own arrangements for accommodation in the reception areas, in many cases with relatives and friends. The billeting needs of the various Departments concerned are already co-ordinated, centrally, regionally and in the local districts. My right hon. Friend has already made an Order in respect of one district, designed to secure that accomodation shall be provided only for certain categories of persons, and Orders in respect of other districts are in preparation. He will not hesitate to make similar Orders for any district where the conditions require it.

Sir E. Cadogan: In view of the fact that complaints of this nature are continually being made, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Ministry will encourage billeting officers to make fuller use of their existing powers to secure accommodation for the Forces and for war workers?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can give an assurance that the powers will be used. The matter is constantly under review, and more co-ordination is taking place between all the Services whose personnel has to be billeted.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. Friend quite sure that when these Orders are made the local authorities carry them out without fear or favour?

Miss Horsbrugh: As I have said, only one Order has been made, and that is being carried out.

Sir J. Lamb: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain Departments are taking over large buildings and doing nothing with them? For instance, there is one at Stafford which was taken over last March by the military.

BOMBED BUSINESS PREMISES (SALVAGE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister which Department is responsible


for the salvage of goods from bombed warehouses and wholesale and retail premises?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The primary responsibility for the salvage of damaged goods rests with their owner, or, in certain cases, the holder, but in order to conserve the national resources various Government Departments have taken the necessary steps to arrange for the prompt salvage of goods with which they are concerned, whether the goods are owned by them or not. Thus, the Ministry of Food act for foodstuffs, the Ministry of Supply for raw materials and machine tools, and the Board of Trade for goods insured under the Commodity Insurance Scheme. A member of the staff of the Regional Commissioner, acting as Regional Salvage Officer, is ready to assist where required and to co-ordinate the activities of all concerned.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very little liaison between, say, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply on this subject, and that when a warehouse which contains goods coming under two different Ministries is bombed the Ministry which turns up first looks after its own supplies, and very often damages the supplies of the other Ministry? Could he see that closer liaison between the Departments is maintained?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me instances, and I will take them up with the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give particulars of any recent appointments by the Admiralty in connection with aircraft production and naval requirements; and the duties and any powers of priority in supply assigned to such appointment?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): With the concurrence of my Noble Friend, a flag officer has recently been appointed as Chief Naval Representative in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and, under him,

a captain, R.N., as Director-General of Naval Development and Production, With a small staff of naval officers. The new organisation will be responsible for the oversight of the development, production and supply of aircraft and their equipment for naval requirements in accordance with the priorities assigned to these requirements by His Majesty's Government.

INOCULATION (SHORE LEAVE).

Mr. Leach: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of men in His Majesty's Ship "Colombo" have been deprived of shore leave for refusing inoculation; and whether, in view of the fact that the reports on the health of the Navy disclose the occurrence of a considerable number of cases of typhoid fever in inoculated men, he will follow the precedent set by the Admiralty in the last war when similar cases of deprivation of leave occurred, and permit objectors to inoculation to have leave in the same way that inoculated men are allowed it?

Sir V. Warrender: Men who have declined inoculation against a particular disease are by Admiralty order precluded from receiving shore leave at places where that disease is liable to be contracted. This is a precautionary, not a punitive, measure, and in other places no restriction is placed on leave. I am aware that a number of men in His Majesty's Ship "Colombo" have refused inoculation and have, therefore, been refused shore leave at various places. The rule mentioned above was introduced in 1916. I can find no instance of any exception to it. After careful consideration, I do not feel able to authorise any exception now, in view of the importance of taking every precaution to prevent the introduction of disease on board one of His Majesty's ships, especially in war time.

Mr. Leach: Is there any compensatory leave for these men who have been deprived of leave under this mistaken order?

Sir V. Warrender: This is only a question of men going ashore from their ships. If it is possible for them to go ashore within certain precincts, where they cannot get in contact with any disease prevalent in the port, leave is given, as, for instance, to go to a canteen.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not recognised that this is in the interests of the individual, as well as of the public service?

CAMOUFLAGE.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the submarine menace, adequate steps are being taken to extend to shipping the protection afforded by scientifically carried out camouflage?

Sir V. Warrender: The position has not altered since I answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) on 17th April. While this matter is kept constantly under review, experience does not indicate that camouflage offers any measure of protection against submarine attack.

Captain Graham: Is my hon. Friend not aware that in 1917 scientifically worked-out camouflage was definitely found to be of the utmost value by the Mercantile Marine, and that the underwriters reduced premiums in consequence of the success achieved by scientific camouflage based on the two principles of counter-shading and dazzle?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think that conditions now are quite the same as they were in 1917. I can only tell my hon. and gallant Friend that the best scientific advice at our disposal at the Admiralty has been taken.

Captain Graham: Might I, with great respect, suggest that my hon. Friend should seek further advice?

Sir V. Warrender: If my hon. and gallant Friend can suggest any further source, I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

BOMBED PROPERTY (GROUND RENTS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to excuse payment of ground rent when holdings have been completely destroyed by enemy action?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I would refer to the answer given yesterday to the Question by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why should the ground landlord be put in a better position than the owner of the building?

The Attorney-General: As I think the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the way in which this matter is dealt with is based on the principles laid down by the Uthwatt Committee, whose report was accepted by the Government with, I think, the general approval of the House. As I stated yesterday, the question, which has again been raised by a number of hon. Members, is again being considered.

UNITED STATES (SIR WALTER LAYTON'S STATEMENT).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made, on 26th December, 1940, by Sir Walter Layton, on his return from a Government mission to the United States of America, on the prospect of American aid, was made with the approval of the Government; and, if not, what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of unauthorised statements being made by people who are, or have been, engaged on a Government mission?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a debate on agricultural production at an early date next month?

Mr. Attlee: In view of the important measures now before the House, I regret that at the moment I cannot hold out any hope of a special opportunity being given for a debate on this subject.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that food is all-important? Would he not see that the big farm call-up is cancelled? Already food production is affected; how does he imagine that we can get more food when key men are being taken away? It is imperative that these men should be left on the land if we are to get food.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNION ACT.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the Government's policy with


regard to the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act; and is it intended to repeal it or modify the Act in any form?

Mr. Attlee: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Batey: Can the Minister say when he expects to be in a position to answer a Question of this kind. If a similar Question is put down next week, will he be in a position to answer it?

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question has been discussed?

Mr. Attlee: The matter is under consideration.

Mr. E. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Cabinet to the great contributions that the organised working people of this country are making to the war effort?

Mr. Attlee: I will certainly do that, but they really do not need to have it brought to their attention, as they are fully aware of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PIGS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, to state the administrative difficulties which prevent his Department buying pigs at dead-weight instead of live-weight and thus obviate the present practice of marking pigs by perforating their ears whilst still alive?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): All pigs for slaughter are at present bought by dead-weight. The purchase of pigs by live-weight is impracticable owing to the absence of suitable facilities for weighing pigs alive at the majority of markets. An investigation completed last June showed that special facilities for weighing pigs exist in only a few markets. In other cases, the only facilities available for weighing livestock are cattle weighing machines. Tests have proved conclusively that it is not practicable to use these machines for weighing pigs. In some markets there are no weighing

facilities for livestock whatsoever. The use of the dead-weight rather than the live-weight system of purchase for pigs is, however, not based solely on administrative difficulties. There are also strong objections in principle to the purchase of pigs by live-weight.

Mr. Hall: Is there any other way of marking pigs than in this way?

Major Lloyd George: It is extremely difficult to get a marking which does not come off in the processes through which they have to go, and after very careful investigation this has been found to be far the most practical method.

MEAT (MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that soldiers, many of whom are doing sedentary work, are allowed eight ounces of meat per day, while the allowance to men performing hard manual labour in civil life is only two or three ounces a day; and can he see his way clear to make a more equitable distribution of this important food?

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that officials working in Government Departments, who are in uniform, are rationed for food on a substantially larger scale than civilians doing similar work in the same Departments: and will he take steps to bring this anomaly to an end?

Major Lloyd George: The question of rations for Service personnel is one that falls primarily within the province of the Service Departments, and my Noble Friend is bringing to the notice of those Departments the views expressed by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Higgs: Does my hon. and gallant Friend seriously consider that there is any justification at all for the soldier at present in this country receiving four times as much meat as the munition worker, and is it not the case that the former receives meat and not sausages?

Major Lloyd George: As I have pointed out before, the question of rationing for the Services is a matter primarily for the Service Departments, but, as I stated in


my answer, my Noble Friend is bringing the points in the Questions of my hon. Friends to the notice of these Departments.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not purely a matter of negotiation between the two Departments in the existing circumstances?

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that the pork section of the Castleford Meat Retailers Committee have passed resolutions of protest against Circular D.M.R. 3/51, on the ground that they are unable adequately to supply workers engaged in heavy trades with necessary products, and urging that they should have guaranteed 60 per cent. of all classes of manufacturing meat at regular weekly intervals; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: The revised arrangements for the distribution of pork outlined in the circular quoted by the hon. Member were discussed with representatives of the pork section of the national organisations of butchers before they were put into operation. The Ministry fully appreciates the importance of pork butchers in their capacity as meat manufacturers, and under the arrangements in the circular referred to it is hoped that these butchers will be able to increase their output of manufactured meat products such as sausages and meat pies. The Ministry will continue to do all that is practicable to help pork butchers in this respect consistent with the equitable treatment of other manufacturers and the requirements of consumers in districts where there are no or only few pork butchers.

Mr. Smith: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether he is satisfied that these particular butchers get a fair allocation and whether he is aware that one of their complaints is that some of the large chain stores have more of these products to sell than the small butchers? Will he satisfy himself that these butchers get a fair allocation?

Major Lloyd George: I will.

WHOLESALE PRICES.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he

is aware that the wholesale prices of ducks, fowls, haddock, whitings, etc., are 40 to 60 per cent. higher in Birmingham than London, and will he investigate the matter in order to bring the latter prices more into line with the former?

Major Lloyd George: As regards ducks and fowls, the Maximum Price Order which came into operation as from Monday last, 27th January, will remedy the position to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards haddock, whiting, etc., the possibility of devising some suitable form of price control is under consideration.

Mr. Higgs: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the price of hares is 100 per cent. more in Birmingham than in London?

Major Lloyd George: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that, while prosecution is a valuable weapon to maintain wholesale prices on a proper level, publicity is a valuable weapon with which to retain retail prices at a proper level; and, as little use is being made of the publicity value, will he make greater use of the wireless in this matter?

IMPORTS FROM EIRE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he can make a statement regarding the importation from Eire of lard, fat cattle and sheep; what limitation is put on imports of bacon and bacon pigs from Eire; and whether he will give an assurance that the whole position will be considered anew with a view to permitting an increase in these imports for the period of the war for the purpose of providing an added volume of food for the population of this country for the war period?

Major Lloyd George: At the present time there is no quantitative restriction on the importation from Eire of fat cattle, sheep or bacon pigs. The quantity of bacon imported is determined by mutual agreement between the Ministry and the Government of Eire, to provide for the maximum supply of such food to this country. As regards lard, negotiations are proceeding for the purchase of Eire lard by the Minister of Food. The question of an assurance such as my hon. Friend desires does not, therefore, arise.

FORTIFIED FLOUR.

Mr. Leach: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether white flour unadulterated with vitamin B and calcium salt will be available after the fortified white flour is put on the market; and whether the fortified white flour will be labelled to show that chalk and a chemical substance have been mixed with it?

Major Lloyd George: The decision announced on behalf of the Government in the House on 18th July last concerned the addition of vitamin B1 and a calcium salt to white flour used for bread making. No decision has yet been reached on the question of similarly fortifying all white flour.

Mr. Leach: Is there any intention to have a label so that people may know what they are getting?

Major Lloyd George: If the decision was that all white flour should be so fortified, it would not arise, but if some white flour is not fortified, then a label would probably be desirable.

CHEESE (MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, what arrangements he is making to ensure that miners and other heavy manual workers requiring to carry food are supplied with an adequate ration of cheese which is specially suitable for this purpose?

Mr. Daggar: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he has considered the communication from the Arrail Griffin Lodge, Abertillery, of the South Wales Miners' Federation, regarding the existing supply of cheese for mine workers; will he state the nature of his reply; and whether, in view of the increased population due to evacuation and that cheese constitutes the chief item of food of such workers, he will consider augmenting the supply of cheese to this and similar mining areas?

Major Lloyd George: The Arrail Griffin Lodge has been informed that the available supplies of cheese are distributed to retailers throughout the country in proportion to pre-war trade but that supplies are augmented wherever there has been a

considerable increase in population. As regards the supply of cheese to miners and other heavy manual workers I would refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 22nd January.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the Minister of Food recognise the necessity for such workers having adequate supplies of cheese, and cannot his Department make a claim upon the available food supplies to the extent of demanding that these workers shall have as much as members of His Majesty's fighting Forces?

Major Lloyd George: The Ministry does keep in mind the necessity of supplying as much cheese as possible to miners, and in mining areas the quantity of cheese available per head of the mining population is higher than the average for the rest of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will my hon. and gallant Friend see to it that agricultural workers should have as much cheese as miners, as their labour is equally valuable?

Mr. Daggar: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware there are instances in mining areas where miners are unable to obtain cheese on many days in the week; and does not he think that it is strange that his Noble Friend should advise those who frequent restaurants to forgo the eating of cheese whereas, on the general question of food supplies, he hesitates to exercise compulsory powers?

Major Lloyd George: The average consumption of cheese in Abertillery in 1939 was 3.5 ounces per head, as compared with the general average for the whole population of 2.5. But I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman that cheese is in short supply, although we hope it will not be short for long.

Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister say what results have resulted from the appeal to the restaurant people not to eat cheese?

Major Lloyd George: The result is that miners are getting a little more.

REQUIREMENTS (PREDICTION).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is satisfied that there exists in


his Ministry an efficient organisation for the prediction of food requirements and supply?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that our predictions of food requirements and supplies must necessarily be revised from time to time in the light of changing circumstances.

Mr. Simmonds: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a very strong impression that the fluctuations in the rationing of some food week by week, particularly meat, is not entirely due to variation in the supply but is due to the fact that there is not sufficiently careful prediction of what that supply will be? Will my hon. and gallant Friend have the matter further examined to see that rationing is more stabilised week by week?

Major Lloyd George: It is not possible in changing circumstances to predict with any certainty of accuracy what the situation will be in a few weeks' time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is done to try to determine what the supply position will be.

Mr. Hannah: Do small retailers get as good consideration as the large retailers?

OATS (RACEHORSES).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he will state what quantity of oats is consumed by horses which take part in winter racing; and whether the present food position justifies the use for this purpose of food that might be diverted to human consumption or made into good crushed oats for cows?

Major Lloyd George: I am advised that there are about 2,300 racehorses now in training, compared with about 11,000 before the war, and that they will consume about 3,500 tons of corn per annum. The Government has not considered it necessary to prohibit racing altogether. Food supplies was one of the factors taken into account in arriving at this decision.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider whether it is not desirable to prohibit winter racing in view of the food position and other considerations

and will he make representations to the Home Secretary or the Government on these lines?

Sir Herbert Williams: If horses for winter racing were killed off would there be any racing in the summer?

SEAMEN ASHORE.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that those in charge of canteens, hostels and other provision for mercantile marine seamen complain that it is impossible to feed the men adequately on ordinary civilian meat and other rations; and whether he will consider the provision of extra rations comparable to those granted to men of the Armed Forces when on leave either to the men while at home or to the canteens, etc., catering for them?

Major Lloyd George: Seamen of the Mercantile Marine are allowed when at sea the full rations prescribed under the Merchant Shipping Act which are on a very adequate scale. There are serious administrative difficulties in making special rations available to merchant seamen during the short time they are ashore, and my Noble Friend regrets that he does not consider it practicable to depart from the present arrangements.

Miss Rathbone: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend consider whether he cannot at least allow additional rations to the men when they get to hostels and canteens?

Major Lloyd George: This, of course, involves the question of supply, and in extending such a concession to one section of the community other sections engaged on heavy work must also be considered.

COAL DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered bringing suitable labour from other coalfields to Somerset in order to meet the demand for coal in the Bristol area so as to obviate the necessity for overloading the railway system with mineral traffic from distant coalfields?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am fully aware of the need for increasing the production of coal in certain districts so as to reduce as far as possible the load upon the transport system. During the month of January I have promoted negotiations between the bodies concerned in order to overcome the obstacles (such as housing, difference in wage rates and working conditions) to transferring unemployed miners from the South Wales district to Somerset.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary for Mines what steps have been taken to accelerate the unloading of railway coal wagons; and what progress has been made?

Mr. Grenfell: Depot managers have now been appointed under the House Coal Distribution (Emergency) Scheme for all depots in the South of England, with one or two exceptions, and for the great majority of depots in the rest of the country. The hon. Member will appreciate that the steps which need to be taken vary with local circumstances, but arrangements have been made for cases of difficulty, which cannot be disposed of locally, to be reported to my Department and to be dealt with by day to day action between the Department, the House Coal Scheme and the railway companies. These arrangements have been working very satisfactorily and I am glad to be able to say that the figures show a considerable improvement in the rate of clearance of coal wagons during recent weeks.

Mr. T. Smith: Where these wagons have been held for a good many months and are now being unloaded can they be sent to other districts where they are working short time?

Mr. Grenfell: I will not guarantee that wagons will be sent to a certain area, but it is true that there has been an increase of wagons in the Midland area and that output has been higher than at any time since last July.

Mr. Culverwell: Will my hon. Friend consider a further increase in the demurrage rates in order to increase unloading?

Mr. Grenfell: Negotiations are taking place at the present time on that problem.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd January.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Payments to be either of cost of works or by reference to value.)

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:
and if a lessee reinstates a building with such omission he and any superior lessee shall be deemed to have performed any covenant to rebuild, repair or reinstate the premises contained in any lease affecting the hereditament:".—[Mr. Silkin.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Sir Herbert Williams: Before our proceedings were interrupted on Thursday the Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated that, in his judgment, this Amendment was not necessary because the situation was already covered by the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939. I have looked up the relevant Section, which is Section 1, and, frankly, I found it difficult to understand. The purpose of Section 1 does render unnecessary the hon. Gentleman's Amendment—Sub-section (1) appears to govern the point—but when one reads Sub-section (2) the situation becomes ambiguous and I think we ought to have a rather more extensive statement from the Financial Secretary or the Attorney-General as to the correct interpretation of the Act of 1939.

Mr. Spens: May I add a word? Whether the construction which the Financial Secretary put upon the Act on Thursday was right or not, this does raise a major point of difficulty under the Act. Under the Act there is a statutory liability to restore premises to the state which they were before the damage occurred, and quite apart from the statutory liability under that Act there may be a statutory liability to provide lateral support or something of that sort under a building scheme allowing premises only to be used for a certain purpose and in a certain way. These matters do not at present appear to be dealt with in any way by the Bill. The question arises again much more acutely under Clause 8

than under this Clause, and I myself have a series of Amendments to that Clause to deal with this same sort of point. I should like to know that the whole thing generally is being considered and that it will be made clear that if a person carries out a direction given by the Commission, he will be relieved from all other liabilities, statutory, personal or otherwise, in carrying out such a direction.

Mr. Silkin: As the mover of the Amendment, may I refer to a difficulty which I can foresee? Under Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, a tenant cannot be compelled to make good war damage, but supposing that he does purport to make good the war damage, cannot he be required at the end of his tenancy to restore the premises to their original condition? Although nobody can compel him to make good war damage, when he has purported to do so under direction of the Commission, he has not done what the lease required him to do, but something less, and I am concerned lest he should then have to restore the premises to their original condition.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). Although the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act removes the liability to declare, there may be a question whether a difficulty might not still arise under the liability to hand over at the conclusion of the lease. Certainly, I will have that point looked into in order to see whether it is already covered. The matter raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) will also be looked into. His point was whether, if a person carried out a direction given by the Commission, there would be any question of a difficulty arising out of the covenants of the lease. I will have that matter looked into, and see whether any alteration is necessary.

Mr. Silkin: With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that in the event of it being agreed between the insured contributor and the Commission that the reinstatement of the hereditament in a form other than that in


which it existed immediately before the occurrence oil the damage would be more acceptable and involve a less payment than required under this paragraph, the amount of the payment shall be the lesser amount required to reinstate the hereditament in the new form.
I gather that, with reference to points which I made when last we discussed the Measure, the Attorney-General agrees it would be a tragedy if, in the wording of this Clause, there were an implication that buildings which were destroyed had to be reinstated in their original form. Subsection 2(a) of the Clause contains the following:
provided that if the reinstatement of any part of the hereditament could have been omitted …
These words imply that the buildings are to be built again. In the case of a large number of buildings of an ornamental nature and belonging to a past decade, if the building were damaged it would be a matter for simple agreement between the Commission and the owner to have built an entirely new building at much less cost and on more modern lines. I should like the Chancellor either to agree to my Amendment or to alter the wording of the previous provision in such a way that it does not imply any obligation on the part of the Commission to reinstate ornamental or out-of-date buildings when modern buildings be far more suitable.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I support this Amendment. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper later on aimed at the same purpose. It is considered by the local authorities to be undesirable that they should be compelled to reinstate buildings which are out of date and for which they would be prepared at a later date to provide something much more modern. Under the Bill, there is not that option. I feel that for that portion of the building which can or should be replaced, there should be a cost-of-works payment, but for any other portion there might be the other payment, which would be very much more suitable.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) for putting this point. I am advised that under Sub-section (2, b) of this Clause, we shall be able to effect the

arrangements that have been suggested by them. There is no intention of insisting on exact reinstatement where it is unnecessary and where it is obviously against the public interest to do so. I am advised that this matter is covered by the Bill, but I will undertake to consider the matter again in order to be absolutely sure. I will take steps to see that that point is covered.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying a few words about the position of the Bill generally and the Amendments on the Order Paper. There is, of course, a very large number of Amendments, and I do not dispute that a good many of them are very material ones and will have to be discussed; but hon. Members will appreciate that I am rather concerned about how long the Bill will take in this stage. I wish to thank hon. Members for what they did at the last sitting, and what no doubt they will do to-day, to expedite the passage of the Measure, subject of course to reasonable discussion and criticism. We shall be approaching in a very short time now one of the major problems of the Bill—the value payment; and it sems to me that on that matter, and on a good many other major matters which may arise, it would be useful that a general discussion should take place on particular Amendments and that I should at an early stage state the general position of the Government with regard to the matter. I should also be in a position to hear the criticisms of hon. Members and take them into account at another stage in our proceedings. I think that in this way we should be able to get a proper discussion on all subjects and make the most rapid progress with the Bill itself.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon Gentleman consider making a brief statement on his attitude towards the proposals on the Order Paper which emanate from the public utilities authority, as this, equally, might shorten discussion on a number of Amendments?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must wait until we reach that part of the Bill.

Mr. Graham White: I listened with great satisfaction to the Chancellor's remarks. I wonder whether he has been able so far to form in his own mind any time-table for the Bill.

The Chairman: To put the matter in Order, perhaps the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) will formally move to report Progress, and then the Chancellor can reply. We cannot carry on this discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. White: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir K. Wood: I have given consideration to what we can do and have consulted a number of my hon. Friends on the matter. There is, of course, the possibility of sitting to a later hour. That is a point upon which the Chief Whip and others will have to advise. There is also the possibility of sitting an extra day. I did also think that at a later stage in the Bill, when we have seen how the discussions are going, we might have some perhaps informal discussions, such as I have already had, on the Measure which might perhaps expedite its passage. There are on the Paper Amendments which, while they are important, are of a minor character and I might be able to satisfy my hon. Friends as to where the Government stand on them, and in that way we might save some discussion. I might not always be able to accept the Amendments, but perhaps hon. Members would take the view of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill and is only anxious to get a workable Measure. I will consider seeing some of my hon. Friends in the next few days, as I have seen them in the last few days, to ascertain whether we can expedite the passage of the Measure.
I do not want to suggest any sort of time-table at this stage. We are all anxious to get this Bill and to get it into workable form, and it is very difficult to think of a time-table in that connection. Therefore, I suggest that we might have personal consultations with Members to see whether it is necessary for us to have any extension of our sittings. We might see what progress is made and then consider the matter further in the light of the experience of the next few sittings. To my mind there are three or four major questions which ought to receive what I would call really proper and adequate discussion. On the other hand, there are many Amendments of a minor character, some of them drafting Amendments. During the last few da I have seen, for instance, representatives of the municipal

corporations and other bodies, and discussed the Amendments in which they are interested. I think by that means I shall be able to dispose of a number of Amendments. At the moment I would prefer to adopt that method, and see what progress we make, and then I will bring forward the matter again in the light of experience.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed is a reasonable and satisfactory method of dealing with this Bill. I should not favour anything like a time-table. I do not think it would work satisfactorily and the net result would be to waste time, and I feel that the course suggested by the Chancellor would be beneficial. The Chancellor will realise, of course, that the Bill itself comes to an end in August, and that it will not be very long before he will have to consider the Bill which will follow.

Mr. White: I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his suggestions, which I have no doubt will expedite the progress of the Measure. When I first saw the Bill I thought that in peace-time it would have gone to a Committee and that it would have been very doubtful whether it ever emerged again. Seeing that at this time we are concerned not to produce meticulous Measures, scrutinising every detail, but just, equitable and workable Measures, I cannot help thinking that we ought to make rapid progress.

Earl Winterton: I think the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has put the position wrongly. I am in entire agreement with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. There are certain very important parts of the Bill which must be considered, and it is wrong to suggest that details must not be scrutinised. In the past great harm has been done by passing housing Measures rapidly, sometimes under the Guillotine, so that there has been no opportunity of giving proper consideration to certain points. Therefore, I support what the Chancellor has said, and would even put the case perhaps more strongly than he has done, because those not in office can put such a case stronger than a Minister. On every Bill


of this kind, I would point out, without making any unfair criticisms against my hon. Friends, there are Amendments which are really redundant and can be disposed of by discussion, and I hope that in a number of cases my hon. Friends who have Amendments may, after they have had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be ready to withdraw their Amendments, so that we may not be too much curtailed in our opportunities for discussing the really important questions. Further, I think the Chancellor ought to press very strongly the Prime Minister, whose business it really is to deal with Sittings of the House, to consider the question of sitting an hour later. With the shorter black-out I do not see why we should not sit an hour later.

Mr. Barne: While the procedure suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to meet the general convenience of the House, there is one reaction arising from his suggestion about dealing with Members' Amendments which we ought to consider further. Although many Amendments may be of a drafting character or raise relatively minor points, they may have been put down for the purpose of getting an interpretation or an explanation from the Chancellor himself. He now proposes that that explanation should be given to the Member direct. It often happens that the point raised is minor in character, but it brings a statement from the Front Bench which becomes public information. It may be that the point covers a limited interest, but the explanation serves a wider public purpose. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary would, under this procedure, give to Members who have put forward Amendments a written statement of the explanation they have given in private. I think that would be of value if the Chancellor could agree to that.

Sir K. Wood: Certainly I will do that.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the general discussion of the principle in Clause 4, and also Clause 5, I wonder whether he could indicate on which Amendment he thinks that discussion might take place. We do not know what Amendments are to be called, and usually such a discussion would take place

on the Question of the Clause standing part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Most of the Committee realise that when there are a number of Amendments, all directed to the same point, the Chair selects the one which it thinks most useful for discussion, and all other Amendments of a similar intent can be discussed on that Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: Like the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) I venture respectfully to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I should like to ask one question about his use of the word "important." If importance is to be measured entirely by the size of the interest concerned, there may be some matters which I think ought to receive full discussion which may not be regarded as falling into the "important" class. For instance if by act of God—or the devil—bombs happened to fall in particular directions, there might be so much capital damage that the whole control of higher education would be taken out of the independent hands in which it has been for many generations and become entirely centralised. Therefore matters, which may seem small in themselves from the point of view of money value compared with the whole amount of damage, may be of very great public and political importance in other directions. I should like to be assured that they will be taken into consideration in the conduct of these Debates.

Sir J. Lamb: While I entirely agree with the desire of the Chancellor, I would point out that this is a very important Bill; we must be very sure we do not make great mistakes in trying to accommodate ourselves to the moment in having shorter discussions. One point which arises is that a Member may withdraw his Amendment, thereby depriving other Members of the opportunity of expressing their points of view. Members might hope to support a particular Amendment when it came forward. I think there is a danger there. I should like to support what was said by the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that we should sit an hour later. My other suggestion is that we all might do our bit by making short speeches.

Sir K. Wood: I am very much indebted to my hon. Friends for the points they


have raised. As far as I am concerned I would rather err on the side of having discussion, provided it was conducted with due regard to the number of Amendments on the Paper. If there is a question of discussing an Amendment or not, I would be in favour of discussion. It is also true, as my hon. Friends have reminded me, that I must deal with this matter again to cover the period after August, as far as the financial side is concerned. That will give me an opportunity, if matters come to light in the interim or have been overlooked, to deal with such matters again at that stage. Therefore, if necessary, we have that in reserve. I think that on those grounds we had better proceed as at present and see how we get along.

Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Doland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "circumstances," to insert:
including the cost of demolition and the removal of debris where borne wholly or partly by any owner or part-owner of a hereditament.
I consider that this Amendment is self-explanatory and sets out clearly what is required. If it is not inserted in the Bill, much controversy may arise in regard to compensation. As the Chancellor is aware, there are many buildings now partly standing which have had bombs sent down on them, but which are not apparently demolished. Undoubtedly, before the end of the war many of these buildings will need demolition, and consequently the question of cost to the occupier or owner arises. It has been suggested to me and my friends that in many instances the cost may be found by selling the debris, but in many other instances that will not be the case. I think I am voicing the opinions of many who have already had damage done to their buildings in asking that this Amendment be included in the Bill.

Earl Winterton: Perhaps it would be right if I stated now that I am, under this Bill, a very considerable beneficiary. I think it should be disclosed, that whatever happens I shall gain to a very large extent indeed. However, I rise to say that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland). I think it is an unfair charge to place on the general body of insured, and the Treasury. I, at any rate, do not associate myself with the Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: I am sorry to differ from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). We have this rather strange situation. In many parts of London sites have already been cleared by local authorities. In some cases the work will be done at public expense, and in other cases it will not. Therefore, you are creating a difference as between citizen and citizen. This Amendment provides that everyone is to be treated alike, and therefore on grounds of equity rather more consideration should be given to it than the Noble Lord suggests.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to shorten the discussion, to indicate whether he intends to accept this Amendment?

Sir K. Wood: I have been dying to do so for some time.

Mr. Hall: I think the Amendment is acceptable to the large majority of the Committee.

Sir K. Wood: Hon. Members have been very brief in their remarks; but I am advised that the point raised is covered by the Bill as far as reasonable costs are concerned. The draftsmen advise me that that is covered by the word "proper cost." I think that all points of this character which are raised I shall have to examine again.

Sir H. Williams: That will not cover value payments but only cost of work payments.

Major Milner: Will it cover making good damage done by deterioration? Obviously many of these properties suffer considerably as a consequence of the original damage. I assume that it will probably come under "proper cost"?

Sir K. Wood: I would not agree to consent to that. I am dealing with the Amendment on the Paper.

Earl Winterton: I find myself in considerable disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who is not, I think, an expert in this matter, although he holds wide interests on all subjects. The removal of the debris would be met by the selling of it. There will be a tremendous demand for debris of this kind, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not go too far, otherwise the whole carefully-balanced scheme will not succeed. The main object, whether one is a house owner or not, is to get houses rebuilt.

Mr. Doland: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "or".
This Amendment, and the second Amendment standing in my name, to insert "land agent", would make the Sub-section read as follows:
(3) In this Part of this Act the expression 'proper cost' means in relation to any works, such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current when the works are executed and to all other relevant circumstances, and in computing the proper cost of any works the cost of the necessary employment of an architect, surveyor, land agent, or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity, in connection with the execution of the works shall be treated as part of the cost of the works.
I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have omitted this point.

Sir K. Wood: I will accept the words "land agent".

Mr. Silkin: I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates that by deleting the word "or" a claimant might be entitled to charge the costs of both an architect and a surveyor. I do not know whether that was the intention.

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that. I want to make it plain that we intend to include land agents within the definition. I do not think it has the effect that the hon. Member says.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 43, after "surveyor" insert "land agent".—(Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.)

Mr. Doland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, after "works," to insert
or the preparation and the negotiation of a claim either for payment of cost of works, or a value payment.
The Amendment is self-explanatory. I hope that compensation will be paid for the services of an architect or surveyor where it is necessary for a claimant to engage professional help in the preparation, either in the first instance of a claim or, later, in the negotiations for compensation.

Major Milner: I support the Amendment though I think I had better say I am personally interested in it. As drawn, the Clause is extremely narrow. There are many cases where estates are conducted by firms who employ surveyors or estate agents. I am told that where matters have been left in their hands their charges are on a percentage basis. Presumably a solicitor would be able to charge only on an item basis for the work that he did, and he would employ a surveyor who would similarly be paid only for the work he did on a percentage basis depending on the result of the claim. In the long run, if the Amendment were accepted, it would probably result in an eventual saving to the Exchequer. It is reasonable in a complicated Measure of this sort, where legal aid must be invoked, that the claimant should be paid the reasonable costs thereof. Of course it would be paid only when the employment of a surveyor or solicitor is necessary and the cost has to be a reasonable one, so that there are really ample safeguards.'

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Amendment was drawn very narrowly.

Major Milner: No, I said the Clause was drawn very narrowly because it is confined to certain classes of individuals.

Sir J. Lamb: I accept the correction. I strongly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's later contention that the Amendment is drawn too widely. It says "the costs." It does not say "taxed costs," and words should be put in to ensure that the costs would be taxed and should be reasonable.

Major Milner: I agree.

The Attorney-General: I think my hon. Friend would be the first to recognise the importance of not putting in words which would so widen the costs that the estate would bear that people would say, "We will employ so and so. It will all go on the bill." We are dealing with the cost of work, and that is the only matter that we can discuss. We have already in the Bill the cost of
an architect, surveyor, land agent, or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity.
That seems to indicate a very wide and reasonable ambit of what can be included in the proper cost.

Mr. Benson: I am not quite sure whether the Attorney-General's statement means that there will be any charge at all allowed to an estate agent or surveyor for the preparation of the claim. That is the whole point of the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The basis of the thing is that the Government pays the proper cost of works. There will be an estimate from a builder in the ordinary way. If you add the words "preparation and negotiation of a claim" you are inviting unnecessary costs.

Mr. Benson: I do not know whether I am an interested party or not, but I am an estate agent and I spent the whole of the Recess preparing forms. I shall charge my client anyhow, whether the Government pays or not. The Attorney-General says it is quite simple. The owner of the property gets an estimate and sends it in, but it is a great deal more than that. The ordinary small property-owner is simply boggled when he looks at the form. It is obvious that the Attorney-General has not had the experience that we have had in Manchester. The small property-owner cannot get his property repaired. The builders are far too busy to go round giving estimates. An estate agent has a pull in getting estimates because he probably has an account of £3,000 or £4,000 a year with the builder. I have received an immense amount of help from the builders and contractors employed by my firm. Had I been Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith owning one or two small cottages, I could not have got a builder at any price. The preparation of these claims involves a considerable amount of work. I spent a month on them, and as a professional man I expect to be paid by somebody. I shall

send in my claims to my clients. The question is whether for essential works, which in many cases the property-owner cannot undertake, where he is involved in expense, that expense is a proper one to be paid under the Bill. I think that it is.

The Attorney-General: I do not think my hon. Friend has a clear picture of the cost of works claim. There is no question here of getting out a claim prior to doing the work. We propose to have a similar form to V.O.W. 1. It will be a simple form recording the damage. The actual amount to be paid does not arise, as my hon. Friend will see under the later Clauses, until the work can be done. There is no question of a man having to evaluate a claim before the time comes when the work is to be done. I still think that the Clause as it stands, which authorises
the cost of the necessary employment of an architect or surveyor, land agent or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity
meets the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Doland: Did I understand the Attorney-General to say that this Sub-section applies only to payment of cost of works and not to value payment? If he means that, will it give me the opportunity at a later stage of moving an Amendment in regard to value payment?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Doland: May I put the question to you, Sir Dennis?

The Chairman: I am afraid that cannot tell the hon. Member now. He must ask me on some other occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 47 to leave out from "equal," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert
to the difference between the value which the hereditament would have after the execution of the works necessary to make good the damage thereto and the value which it would have as a site clear of any buildings or works and with the damage so far as it affects the site not made good.
This Amendment raises one of the most difficult points in the Bill. There is an anomaly in the Bill as between the measure of the value payment and the measure of the cost of works payment. As the Bill is drafted, the measure of the value payment is related to the difference


between the value which the hereditament would have had as at 31st March, 1939, if the damage had not occurred and the value after the damage had occurred; whereas the measure of the payment to be made in respect of cost of works under Clause 5 (1) is the difference between the value which the hereditament would have after the execution of the works and the value it would have as a site clear of any buildings or works. The injustice which arises out of these conflicting provisions is that as between owners of property of equal value the one who suffers the greatest injury will in many cases receive the least amount of compensation; and, as between property owners generally, those who own the largest and most expensive properties will be more likely to receive full compensation than those who own small properties such as the ordinary dwelling-house.
The way in which that arises is this. First let us consider two dwelling-houses side by side, precisely the same. One receives total destruction and the other is destroyed to the extent of 75 per cent. of the structure. In the latter case the probability is that the cost of repairing the structure and making it as it was before will not be any greater than the difference between the value of the buildings after the repair is made and the value of the site; and, therefore, it will be entitled to a cost of works payment under Clause 5. That payment may be equal to the full post-war value of the structure itself as repaired, and nobody knows what that will be, but with the amount of destruction which has already taken place and when life becomes normal again it may well be that the value of property where there has been extensive damage will be much higher. The measure of compensation in this case, therefore, is that difference, whereas in the other case where the house is totally destroyed the measure of the compensation is to be the value as at 31st March, 1939. Therefore, the owner who suffers the greatest loss receives the least amount of compensation. Let us consider the other case of a large property, a big building in the centre of a city, a ferro-concrete construction, or a large block of flats. It is obvious that in such a case destruction will never be so great in relation to the total property as to prevent a cost of works payment being applicable. In the cases

of large properties, where it is highly improbable that the property will be totally destroyed, the owner will have his property completely restored to him as it was before, whereas the unfortunate owner of a small dwelling-house which is completely destroyed will get a payment which is not related to the cost of replacing what he has lost but is related to a standard of value which may never operate in this country again. The Clause is extremely unfair and I have sought by the Amendment to reconcile it with Clause 5 by introducing into it the same measure and the maximum amount of compensation which can be granted as that which is provided for in Clause 5. I know that in certain cases—indeed, this is the object of the Amendment—it will mean that a larger amount of compensation will be payable, but there is no reason why certain cases should be discriminated against as they are under the Bill, under which the greater proportion of the loss is thrown upon those who are the most unfortunate.

Sir K. Wood: I would like to make a general statement on this matter so that the Committee will see exactly where we stand. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made a very powerful statement, as he always does, in criticism of the Government's proposal. I would like to examine it. We are now dealing with a very important part of the Bill, and it has given the Government considerable anxiety. We have given much consideration to this matter. Let me say at once that at no time, so far as I and my expert advisers are concerned, have we been animated by any other object than to do a reasonable and fair thing. The more this matter is examined the more difficult does it appear to be able to achieve that object; but there has not been any other idea than that.
At the moment, we are dealing with the case where reinstatement is not an economic proposition, or where it is not desirable, in the national interest, that there should be reinstatement. We are providing that the value payment is to be equivalent to the amount of depreciation in the value of the property, due to war damage and calculated in relation to values as they were in March, 1939. The reason for that date is to get the value as near as we can to what it was just before the war. Let me give an illus-


tration of how the Government's proposal would work. Take the case of a house worth £2,000 and situated on a site worth £500. Those are the values in March, 1939. The bomb falls. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the site is undamaged but that all the materials of the house are blown to smithereens by the explosion. Then, of course, the house, previously worth £2,000, has clearly depreciated to nil, and a value payment of £2,000 would fall to be made. It has been suggested with great emphasis by my hon. Friends that that payment is unfair to the property owner because it is less generous than the cost-of-works arrangement, under which the owner of a partially damaged house obtains, in general, the full cost of the restoration. It has also been said—and I will anticipate the criticism—that it is unfair in itself because of the fear of rising prices after the war, which would mean that the value payment might prove to be insufficient to construct a house of a similar kind. Those are the two main objections which have been made to the value payment proposal.
Let me deal with the second and major criticism. I will deal with the first criticism in a moment. It is said in particular that the value payment would be insufficient for the small property owner. This point is raised by a number of Members and they have tabled alternative propositions. The effect of the first of these, in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes), would be to base the value payment upon the value of the property at the time when the damage occurred. That is to say, he suggests that the value payment should be based on war-time values. Let me say at once that I think that would be a most unfair proposal. It would be unfair to the property owners, and especially to the small householder, who would be penalised, particularly, by any temporary depreciation in values occasioned by war conditions. It would be most unfair also between one property-owner and another. Take, for instance, the value of a hotel and that of a four-bedroomed dwelling house on the East Coast—

Earl Winterton: Or on the South—

Sir K. Wood: —which would have an entirely different value from an exactly similar hotel or house on the West Coast.

How could you justify payment of compensation on a basis which penalised those with property in areas adversely affected by the war, and at the same time benefited those with properties in the safer areas? With all respect to my hon. Friend who puts forward that proposal, I think there is no question that this Committee could not possibly adopt the proposal.
I turn to the Amendment which has just been moved by my hon. Friend, and which is very similar to Amendments in the names of a number of hon. Members. Perhaps it makes the most radical suggestion of all. The effect of the proposal, as I understand it, is to take as the basis of the value payment the cost of reinstatement current when the work of reinstatement is carried out. My hon. Friend gave as his reason for the proposal that it adopts exactly the same principle as the cost-of-works payment. What does his proposal mean? It would, in fact, guarantee to property owners new property similar in kind to the old which had been destroyed. In other words, if I accepted this proposal, the State would have to provide a new house for every old house destroyed. The proposal completely ignores the factor of depreciation before the damage. It places the property owners in a privileged position compared with other members of the community, who hold, say, Government stocks or bonds, to which no such privileges are attached. These people would have to stand the racket of whatever the future might have, while the property owners, if this Amendment were adopted—it could not possibly be adopted—would be provided by the State with new houses for old.

Mr. Silkin: Is there not the same objection to the cost-of-works proposal?

Sir K. Wood: I will deal with that in a minute. I must remind the hon. Member that it does not make it any better on that account. I am going to give the reason why we have adopted the cost of works payment. It would give no encouragement to the Committee if I said that I would adopt what I would call this rather extraordinary proposition. There are very good reasons why the cost of works payment has in fact been made.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. I agree


that it is obviously not the business of the State to replace depreciation, but, on the other hand, it must also become the business of the State to see that no one gets appreciation of property due to war conditions, and if the Government are open to replace the one they must take steps to recover any appreciation of property due to the war.

Sir K. Wood: What we have to do today is to decide what in fact is the right thing to do with this particular proposition which is before us. It would be most unfair both to the property owners themselves and to the State itself. I need only give one example. It would mean that the owner of a derelict building on a valuable site would receive at the end of the war a new building in the place of one the value of which, perhaps on almost any basis, was either nil or actually a minus quantity because of the liability which it imposed in relation to the value of the site. In other words, one can imagine a number of properties in London to-day, in certain parts not very far from here, where there is a tremendous value on the site and practically nothing on the building itself. Yet, under this proposal, the property owners have to make their heavy contributions under the Bill and the State has to undertake to put up a new building in place of this derelict structure. That, of course, is an impossible proposition.
Then I deal with the last Amendment of substance which relates to this proposal. It stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) and South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I will Say this of this Amendment, that its sponsors do recognise the extreme generosity of the proposal of my hon. Friend to certain property owners. This Amendment recognises that that is an impossible proposition. It therefore suggests that the owners of the property should either be offered a value payment calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, or, if certain conditions are fulfilled, that they should have the option of three-quarters of the cost of restoration. That is a little more reasonable than the other, because it is a 25 per cent. subtraction, but of course it is no more acceptable in principle than the proposal to pay the full cost of restoration in such cases.
The whole mischief of the Amendments on the Paper is that they aim at giving the property owner compensation related not to the value of what has been destroyed but to the cost of its replacement. Again, this proposal to which I am referring will involve payment of compensation on an unduly generous scale in many cases and more particularly when the property destroyed, by reason of its age or other causes, possessed only a small market value. I suggest that in fact when one comes to consider this matter in the light of the considerations which I have put forward, and tries and thinks of some really effective practical proposal, one is driven in the end to the same conclusion to which the experts and myself were driven when we examined this matter. We gave a tremendous amount of time to it, as obviously was necessary. In the end we were bound to come back to the proposals of the Bill. The basis of the proposals of the Bill is this, that where the restoration of property is not an economic proposition, monetary compensation should be paid on the basis which, while taking into account the vital factors of depreciation and market value—they must be taken into account—provides a reasonable basis and a basis fair between one property owner and another.
In other words, the more one looks at this problem the more one is driven to the conclusion that war-time values would certainly be unfair. Some properties today are worth practically nothing at all. Other properties have gone up tremendously in value according to the particular areas where they are situated. It would be impossible to base value payments upon such figures. Post-war values, as I have shown to the Committee, would in a very large number of cases provide new houses for old and we could not admit that. I must say that that proposal, apart from the objections in principle which I have put forward, would also involve interminable delay in the work of assessment which, of course, could not be justifiably begun until stable war value prices had been achieved.
The only matter with which I am left to deal is this: People may say, "How different this is to the compensation that has been given so far as cost of works payment is concerned." The main argument for the cost of works arrangement is that it is really in the national


interest that houses should be repaired. I do not know anyone who objects to that proposal; no one has put down an Amendment about it. Why are people to be paid full restoration for a property which is partially destroyed? We are doing it for national reasons that is the answer—national reasons in the interests of the individual himself and in the interests of the State itself. The reason why we are doing that and making that very substantial payment under the Bill is because we want to see the property restored and to see the man and his family back in the home again, and from the national point of view we also want to see all these houses repaired as quickly as possible. That is the reason for the differentiation between the cost of works payment and the value payment.
From the national point of view whether you give a man a sum of money, or whether you restore his property, are different considerations altogether. That is the real reason behind the proposal which has been made with reference to the cost of works payment and to the value payment. That proposal is really on good sound lines and I do not think there is any question in the mind of any hon. Member that we could do anything different as regards the cost of works payment. The only thing we are left with is the question whether we are doing the best we can as far as the proposal for the value payment is concerned. On the grounds I have already mentioned to the Committee, I submit that immediately you try any other basis for this you are in a position of hopeless confusion, and you are driven back in the end to a date immediately before the war. I have no doubt that all my hon. Friends will help me in connection with this proposal, which, while at first sight open to criticism, is in the end the best and most reasonable solution.

Sir Irving Albery: On a point of Order. I understand that there was to be a general discussion on a certain series of Amendments? I gather that it is a part of the general discussion which has been covered by the Chancellor's present explanation, and I wanted to ask what procedure, in that case, is going to be followed in regard to the various Amendments on the subject of which I have been in touch with him. Will they

be formally put, or what will be the procedure?

The Chairman: All I can say is that my present feeling is that all these other Amendments can be called if required, though I hope there will be no discussion on them. It is for the convenience of the Committee that we are having this general discussion, and then perhaps many of the Amendments will not have to be called. I do not propose to cut anybody off from any chance they have of saying what they wish.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I have put down an Amendment under which the person entitled under the Bill to a value payment would be as an alternative entitled, under certain conditions, to receive three-quarters of the cost of work. The Chancellor has been able to criticise that proposal, as he has been able to criticise every other proposal of a similar kind dealing with this very difficult problem, but frankly I do not think any of the criticisms he has made are any more severe than those which can be made of the proposals contained in the Bill as it stands. As it stands at present, as has already been pointed out, the man who suffers most is to receive least, and this Amendment which I have put down is an attempt to meet that difficulty. I do not think it is unfair that a man who has had his house destroyed should receive a value payment based on the value in 1939 if he is not going to rebuild. That is a fair basis if he is simply going to get the money. But if he has got to rebuild, and a great many proprietors will require to rebuild, how is he going to do it? The cost of building even at the present moment would be at least double the value payment he would receive. Where is he to get the finance to rebuild at the end of the war?
It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. If the Chancellor would even accept the proportion of two-thirds it would enable the problem to be met very much more easily by this class of property owners, who are going to be very badly hit in comparison with the man who does get a cost of works payment. If a property owner knows that if he rebuilds he will receive, during a certain period, a payment of two-Thirds, three-quarters or whatever the cost may


be, he will be able to arrange the necessary finance, and we shall not have the extraordinary situation of having great areas of unbuilt property at the end of the war. Surely we want industry, trade and business to start as quickly as possible. I do hope the Chancellor will consider whether he cannot make some concession to meet this very vital and practical problem. How are these people who are entitled only to a value payment and who have to rebuild going to get the finance unless they have some assurance as to the date of payment and as to payment of some proportion of the cost of works?

Mr. W. H. Green: Notwithstanding what the Chancellor has said in a very clever speech which reveals that this subject is surrounded by very great difficulties—I do not disguise that fact at all—I still feel that the Committee might be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson) which views the problem from a rather different angle to the Amendment put down in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). I am convinced that the Chancellor's speech will create grave dismay among a very large number of fairly small property owners. What my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks to do is to introduce some sort of similarity or equality of treatment between those who are subject to a value payment and those who are to receive a cost of works payment. The Bill as it stands does not do that. None of us are objecting, as the Chancellor rather indicated that we might, to undue generosity of treatment to the recipients of cost of works payments. We do not say that that is wrong. We rather consider that it is right, for it really means that, in the case of a person who receives a cost of works payment, the damage done will be entirely met under this Bill. That, in our submission, is a right provision, but why the man whose property is totally destroyed cannot receive equally generous treatment, the Chancellor, with all his logic, has certainly not convinced me, and I doubt whether he has convinced a good many other people. The main purpose of this Bill, as I understand it, as the man in the street understands it, and as the ordinary small property owner who owns his own home understands it, is that the owner of a house which is destroyed shall

have an assurance that at the end of the war he will be able to rebuild his home.
It is possible to argue, as the Chancellor quite rightly says, that it may mean something beyond the loss sustained, that the person will receive, in place of a house built perhaps 20 years ago and subject therefore to depreciation, a new house of greater value. That is one way of looking at it, but I will ask the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look at it in this way: a man has struggled, as hundreds of thousands of our people have done, to be in a position to own his own house, which is about all that hundreds of thousands do own in this country. After years of struggle, a man has a house which he can call his own. It is destroyed. At the time of its dstruction it may be worth, say, £700 I take a case which is fairly general in the bombed areas. I am not concerned about the huge hotels or great houses in the West End—others will look after their interests. I am thinking of the working man who looks to this Act for the wherewithal to get his house erected again after the war. But, when the war is over, it may cost £1000 to rebuild that house. In hundreds of thousands of cases houses will never be rebuilt—at least, as the property of those who originally possessed them. I know that there are difficulties, and that there are arguments against it, but there is a good deal to be said for the principle that a man who loses his property should be in a position at the end of the war to replace it and, as the Bill stands, I do not see that that is possible.

Sir George Schuster: I do not propose to enter into the arguments on the equity of the case, because they are well known. They have been discussed fully in the Press; they have been dealt with in previous speeches, and I am sure they will be dealt with again. The only thing I would like to say on that is that there is very deep feeling in the country on this matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best, if he is right, to satisfy everybody that he is right. I am not sure that they are satisfied of that yet. I have an open mind, and I see the strength of the arguments that he has put forward.
What I want to do is to put one or two points on which I am not quite clear. The


essence of what we are considering is whether the man who is to get the value payment is being treated fairly as against the man who gets cost-of-work payment. I want to try to understand the two positions. Let me take the position of the man who gets the value payment, and consider the pros and cons of his position. On the advantage side it is stated—I think I am correctly interpreting what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said—that he may expect to know at once where he is. He will have immediate certainty of a definite sum of cash. Also, he will get some compensation for loss of user, because he will be credited with 2½ per cent. interest on his money from the date of the bombing. Against that, he runs the risk that the value of money may have depreciated, and that he will not be able to replace his house with the money he gets.

Major Milner: And probably he will be paying 5 per cent. all the time, and he will only get 2½ per cent.

Sir G. Schuster: I want to check up on these points. I cannot feel clear from the wording of the Bill that he will have the immediate certainty. Clause 5, Subsection 1 (a), deals with the category of people who are going to get a value payment and says that they are to get that in cases of total loss. It then goes on to interpret "total loss." But the words used in the interpretation really mean something quite different. It defines total loss as applying to cases where the cost of repair would be more than the value of the repaired building. The important point, in my mind, is that it will not be possible to apply this criterion until after the war. Who is to say which is the greater or the less of these amounts until we have reached post-war conditions? The doubt in my mind is whether it will be possible to say at once, "This building is a total loss, and we shall assess your compensation at such and such a figure," so as to give the owner a sum on which 2½ per cent. interest is to be paid. It will not be possible to answer this question until you can weigh the relative costs in post-war conditions. Therefore, if I am right, the man who gets the value payment will fail in fact to get the advantage of immediate certainty. I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up that matter.

Another small question is, will the 2½ per cent. interest which is accruing, which the owner is not to get until perhaps many years afterwards, be liable to Income Tax and Surtax? If the interest is to be paid to him tax-free, it will put him in quite a nice position, if he gets immediately a claim which he can sell and which carries 2½ per cent. interest free of tax. But if lie is to be liable to Income Tax, when is he to pay the tax—as it accrues year by year, or at the end of the time? It is a small point, but it is, I think, worth while dealing with.
If one turns to the position of the man who is entitled to cost-of-works compensaiton, he, of course, has the advantage already pointed out by several speakers that what he gets will be based on the actual prices ruling in post-war conditions. On the other hand, he is left in uncertainty, because the Commissioners have very wide discretionary powers, and are bound to take into account the public interest as an overriding consideration. Also, he gets no compensation for the loss of user, because there is no interest accruing on the money that he will eventually get. It is quite possible that a great number of people would prefer an immediately determined value payment to the uncertainty attached to the cost-of-works payment.
That leads me to make a suggestion, which I hope will be considered. This is an extremely difficult matter, and it is quite easy to tear to pieces any Amendment which is put down. So I will only suggest with diffidence a general line of treatment. Could we not say to the owner whose house is a total loss, "You can have your house treated as a total loss. We are prepared to value it at once. You can have say £2,000 credited to you, with 2½ per cent. accruing. But if you wish to put yourself into the hands of the Commissioners, leaving it to them to assess the compensation to which you are to be entitled after the war, you can as an alternative at your own option choose to do so. The Commissioners must not be expected to give you anything of the nature that the Chancellor of the Exchequer fears—a new house for an old one—but when they ome to assess your compensation at the end of the war they will take into account post-war values and the way in which prices have risen, and you will be entitled to your compensation on this basis,


on the express condition that you undertake to use the money you get in rebuilding your house in accordance with any town-planning scheme which may be in force at the time." We might add, as a safeguard, "If the cost of works which is allowed to you is more than the value of the building when it is reconstructed"—and in this I am referring to the provisions of Clause 5, Sub-section 1(a)—"you will have to pay the difference out of your own pocket." If an individual is prepared to put himself into the hands of the Commissioners, trusting to them to give him fair compensation, and thus avoiding all the difficulty of having to draft a Clause now, no one can complain about it, because it is at the individual's option, and you will perhaps eliminate the feeling of unfairness which exists at present.

Major Milner: It is not quite clear to me what is precisely the option that the hon. Member has suggested.

Sir G. Schuster: If your house is destroyed, and the Commissioners say, "That is a total loss; we are prepared to assess the value straight away; you are to get £2,000," the Government would say, "You can have your £2,000 down now if you want it, but if you prefer to wait and put yourself into the hands of the Commissioners, to get what they consider to be fair compensation, having regard to any change in values of repairs and of building costs which may have taken place—always taking account of the actual condition of the old house—you can do so; but, of course, you will be taking a chance."

Mr. Green: Would the hon. Member agree that the payment should be not less than £2,000?

Sir G. Schuster: According to my proposal the individual would have a free choice. He has the certainty, on the one hand; and we ought not to forget that there is this very important advantage on the side of the value payment. But if he exercises an option not to have this certainty, he cannot have it both ways, and must take his chance within any guaranteed minimum.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Does the hon. Member intend that the proprietor should get this payment for increased value at the end of the war unconditionally?

Sir G. Schuster: I made it clear that he would have to use the money for rebuilding. That brings in the national interest, of which the Chancellor spoke. I think I have made my suggestion clear. I have only one other small question to ask. Clause 5, Sub-section 1(a) provides that the test as to whether a man is to get value payment or not, is whether the cost of making good the damage is more than the value of the hereditament after it has been made good, lets the value of the site cleared of any buildings.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is entering upon a wider subject than the one which we are now discussing.

Sir G. Schuster: It is impossible to consider Clause 5 separately from Clause 4. We are considering the two together. If we are to weigh up what a value payment means, as compared to a cost-of-works payment, it is very difficult to discuss the matter without taking the two Clauses together. It is only a very small point which I want to put, but I should be grateful if I might be allowed to do so. In taking the site value into account, is it fair to take the site value cleared of buildings? Clearance may involve considerable cost, and you ought to take that into account. The net cost of clearing the site ought, I suggest, to be deducted from the site value factor in the formula.

Mr. Silkin: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, I think, much more successful in his criticism of the Amendments on the Paper than in his defence of the Clause as it stands. There is a good deal of validity in his criticism of the Amendments, but nobody can feel happy about the Clause as it stands. Clearly there is a very big difference between the treatment of two individuals who have both suffered as a result of enemy action. The person who has suffered more is to be treated worse than the person who has suffered less. The Government must find a way out of this difficulty. Nobody can feel satisfied when he sees that the fellow next-door who has suffered less than he has is getting more favourable treatment than he is. There is no doubt that the cost-of-works payment is intended as a complete indemnity to the person who has suffered. While I see the force of the argument that the person who has had a total loss of old property ought not to


expect a new property in its place, I feel that the Chancellor is really giving that benefit, in a large measure, to the person who gets a cost-of-works payment. It is important that we should get compensation on the basis of a new reinstatement for the others. If it is wrong that a person who gets a value payment should be treated in that way, it is equally wrong in the case of a person who gets a cost-of-works payment. The Chancellor is not doing anything about that. I recognise that the person with an old property ought not to expect a new property in its place.
But the Chancellor must deal with the case of the person who loses a relatively new property. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that there may be old houses, and therefore they ought not to expect them to be reinstated in a new condition, which at the best only applies to a proportion of the houses in this country. While I recognise that it is exceedingly difficult to find the answer to-day, and to ensure equality of treatment between the persons concerned, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this question again in the light of the discussion which has taken place, and to consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member who has just spoken. We ought to consider this in all its bearings and ensure that a person who has a relatively new property totally destroyed should be put into a position of having a new property in its place.
This principle is not a new one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is demanding the same contribution from the owner of a new property as from the owner of an old property. This applies to rateable value. When I insure against fire, the fire office does not ask for an extra premium based on the value of the property. There is a uniform premium, and the obligation of the fire office is to reinstate the property in the condition in which it was before. If an old building is burnt down, they undertake to give you the value of the building as it was before. Therefore I see an inherent difficulty in the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), which is subject to the same kind of variation, admittedly, as in the case of old property.
In another part of the Bill it may well be that a person who would normally be

entitled to a cost of works payment will get a value payment, because it is necessary in the public interest. It is the case of the person whose property is not necessarily a total loss. He goes to the planning stores where he will get the cost of works payment and not the value payment, and he will therefore suffer through no fault of his own. That inequality will be there.
Finally, in another part of the Bill it is proposed to compensate in full on a reinstatement basis property which has been damaged, although it is old property. That principle is conceded in another part of the Bill. You are to get the value of a new article in place of an old article which has been destroyed. If it is conceded in one place, I see no reason why it should not be conceded in another. This matter really cannot be left where it is at present. The Clause is most unsatisfactory, and while I am not able to put forward an acceptable proposal at this stage, and the Amendments, I admit, require further consideration, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the question again and again in order to remove this inequality of treatment before he says that he is not in a position to make any alterations in this Bill.

Mr. Ernest Evans: Like many hon. Members, I approach the Committee stage of this Bill with great difficulty. In view of the fact that it is being taken in Committee of the Whole House, it is obvious that, if anyone puts down Amendments on things that occur to him, these proceedings might be interminable. Therefore, I have refrained, except in one or two matters where great difficulties are involved. My first difficulty in regard to this particular Clause is that it differentiates between cost of works payment and value payment, and I confess that I still fail to find any logical explanation of the provisions of this Bill. At the same time, I regard the Bill as an experiment. It may be that the Treasury may prove to be right, but my nervousness still continues. I agree with the criticisms that have been made and with the definite suggestions which have been offered, particularly by my hon. Friend on the Bench opposite. There is one general difficulty which presses itself upon my mind very much. The people of this country are


very shrewd, and when this Bill was produced, and explanations were given in the Press and elsewhere, I found that people were concerned about it. The trouble, unfortunately, arose from the fact that they were led to believe they were to be offered an insurance Bill. This Bill does not profess to be an insurance Bill but a taxing Bill, with the promise that they shall be given something in return for the taxing. Clause 4 proposes to tell them what they will get in return either by way of cost of works payment or by way of value payment, and the Clause proceeds to define the main object of these terms, but when I look at the Bill a little further I find that in Subsection (5) of the Clause there is a proviso that
The Treasury may by regulations prescribe principles for the valuation of hereditaments of any class specified in the regulations, either by way of modification of the preceding provisions of this Sub-section or in substitution therefor.
The result is that, whereas I thought that the Government had given a definition as to what they meant by cost of works payment and value payment, they now reserve the right—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): May I clear up this small point so that we do not get confused? That refers to the principles of valuation for specified classes—those classes specified by regulations to cover the point where ordinary valuations could not possibly be made because they were of a special character.

Mr. Evans: I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for saying that, because when I read the Clause it made me very nervous, but, of course, I accept his statement, and my criticism about that goes by the board, and I gladly resume my seat.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that those who listened to the explanation of the Chancellor must feel some timidity in tackling this Bill. He certainly showed how complex it was, but in his illustration of the difficulty of applying my hon. Friend's Amendment he drew his example from some old and dilapidated property with a high site value, and made no reference to up-to-date property where there is no site value to speak of. If we are to deal with a Bill that applies generally, then the principles must apply generally,

and not some extraordinary example such as dilapidated buildings. He mentioned depreciated property or depreciated values. Depreciation might mean one of several things. You might have dilapidated property, in which case the property itself has depreciated. You might have property kept in a good state of repair, with no depreciation as far as its utility or value as a house is concerned. I could show the Chancellor of the Exchequer houses that are 40 or 50 years old—and the Lord Advocate knows many such houses—which could not be replaced to-day in the condition in which they are because they have been kept in a good condition. They were built at a time when labour and materials were cheap, and it would be almost impossible to replace them as they were.
Let us take, for example, a most up-to-date property in a new housing scheme under a town-planned area. Supposing that one or two of these houses are completely knocked out. It is almost inevitable that they will be replaced almost exactly as they are to-day. That is bound to be the case from the point of view of town planning, and, if so, what justification is there for refusing to give a cost of works payment just as it is given to the owner of a block of buildings whose property must be replaced in the interests of national planning? A poor person who has put all his savings into building in recent years, following encouragement by the Government, will be ruined, so far as his house is concerned, because the value he will get may not even be sufficient to replace the mortgage, let alone the construction of the building. Most of the money paid by the Government will go to the mortgagee and not to the person who owns the house, who will thus get no home or value payment.
Therefore, I want to reinforce what has been said and to ask the Chancellor to take back this Clause and consider some method of making it adjustable to meet such cases so that they get the same generous treatment in the question of national and local planning as in the case of a block of buildings. In legislation today the Government are being trusted in a way that they have never been trusted in past history. In all kinds of things we are trusting to the Government's good will and kindness of heart. We are trusting them to treat


the unemployed and pensioners decently with regard to the means test and I think we are prepared to trust them and the War Commission to deal decently to the people who suffer war damage. The Chancellor should give the Treasury or the Commission discretion to deal with these properties in what they regard as a fair way and I think we can leave it to them to see that a person who is placed in a position such as I have described will be given the same generous treatment as in other cases and that in the case of a dilapidated property the Treasury will have equal discretion to give nothing at all if that is the proper treatment. Some flexibility should be introduced into this Clause so that it will not create the injustices which I and other hon. Members are convinced it will create as it stands at present.

Mr. Benson: Let us visualise what will happen after the war when the Treasury will be faced with unparalleled difficulties Does anybody think it will be the type of body which will be capable of dealing generously with anybody after the war? It will have its own troubles and I think that to leave this matter to the discretion of the Treasury is largely like leaving the canary to the discretion of the cat. The Chancellor has dealt very efficiently with all the Amendments which have been put down. No one has pressed his Amendment to a Division. One after another they have been completely killed by the Chancellor and this Clause will be completely killed by the Committee. In its present form this Clause will have to be withdrawn. I quite admit that there have been no adequate or alternative suggestions to the Amendment, but it is an extraordinarily difficult Clause. Otherwise, it would not have been put forward in the unhappy state in which it is introduced in this Bill. Amendments have been withdrawn because they have been proved to be incapable of administration but exactly the same thing applies to the Clause itself. I do not see that Amendments are any more unworkable or inadequate than the Clause, and I want to add my voice to those who have said that this Clause must be taken back by the Chancellor and modified in some way. Inequities are bound to occur as it is now drafted and the House and the country would not possibly approve. The Chan-

cellor must introduce modifications in some form or other which will meet the very damaging criticism this Clause has received.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I am disturbed about the word "reinstatement." The obvious intention of this Bill is to be fair and equitable to everybody, but I think too much is being said about replacing houses. There is a lot of property in this country to-day which would not be standing if it would pay for the cost of removal, and the Amendment I have put down on the Paper will endeavour to make it impossible for people to make a profit from war damage. Take any big city: a house is damaged and the cost of reinstatement might be many times its intrinsic value, and I do think some means must be found for assessing this value long before damage takes place.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had the advantage of being present for all the speeches which have been made today. If he had been I am sure he would have found himself in the same position as that in which many of us now find ourselves, namely, that we do not know whether the Bill or the Amendments proposed to it are more subject to criticism. At the same time the Clause as it stands is not entirely logical or satisfactory. We recognise that this is a scheme to which the value of money paid at the time the premium is paid must bear some relation to the value of the money when compensation is paid. That will not be achieved as the Bill stands. I want merely to put one point. We cannot make this Bill perfect in the short time at our disposal, but we are trying as far as we can to meet cases of direct, immediate and most urgent hardships, and I want to say a word for the property owner who has mortgaged his house, the owner-occupier. It may be that it will be very difficult to distinguish between cost-of-works and value payments as made to owner-occupiers and as made to owners of other forms of property, but if there is one person who will suffer tremendous personal hardship under the Bill, it will be the owner-occupier who has mortgaged his house to a building society and who has to subject himself to a value payment after the war. I will quote a case which has been put to me, and I


want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an assurance that this kind of case will be dealt with:
Owing to enemy action my house is a total loss. I had it mortgaged to a building society to the extent of £500. After the end of the war I shall be compensated for the total loss of the house at pre-war value. In the meantime I shall be credited with 2½ per cent. interest, and shall be paying 5 per cent. to the building society, as well as renting another house in the meantime. But in all probability, owing to shortages of supplies and other causes, building costs may be double pre-war prices, and it will cost twice as much to build a house similar to the one I have had destroyed. This means that alter paying the building society what I owe it. I must borrow £1,500 to build a house costing £2,000. This is grossly unfair, as I shall be called upon to pay £1,000 more than I did when I bought my first house.
This is not the only class of persons who will suffer hardship, but I submit this is a class that will suffer tremendous hardship. The man is bombed out of his house, he has to pay 5 per cent. to the building society, capital and interest, and he is bound to find from somewhere the rent for another establishment. I hope the Chancellor will be able, if not before the Bill becomes law, at any rate in the immediate consideration which must be given to the Measure when it becomes law, to deal with that class of persons, and in the meantime to give these people—said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) to number some 4,000,000—some assurance that their case will receive consideration.

Major Milner: It is clear that the feeling of the Committee is that there must be some nearer approach to substantial equality and justice in this matter. It is not right that a man whose house has been only partly demolished shall have it rebuilt and re-instated and that another man whose house has been wholly demolished shall receive what may be quite an insufficient and inappropriate value payment. One of my hon. Friends made the useful point that everybody is paying the same contribution and that therefore, the payment of the claim should be on the same basis. I am not at all satisfied with the differentiation which the Chancellor sought to draw between the different classes of damage. He said that in the case of a cost-of-works payment, it would be in the national

interest to re-build. It would be just as much in the national interest that a house should be re-built after it has been demolished. What is the distinction between one house which is one-half or two-thirds demolished and another house, let us say in the same city of Leeds, which is wholly demolished? Both the people need housing accommodation, probably in the same place, and certainly in the same city—for nobody would leave Leeds when he had settled in such a place. The Chancellor's argument is a wholly fallacious one, unless it is to be said by some Government Department or by the Government themselves that it is in the national interest that a certain building which has been demolished should be rebuilt. That argument might be all right in the case of a property which is a Post Office, or some other nationally necessary and useful building. In a few cases of that sort, it is possible to make some distinction, but in the case of ordinary houses, factories or commercial buildings, there is no justification for the discrimination which the Chancellor has sought to draw. That being the case, the only logical way of dealing with the matter is to treat everybody on a cost-of-works basis, and if it is suggested that this would be too expensive and that there must be some smaller computation, then we shall have to find some other basis.
The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) made a proposal which, although it sounds rather attractive, is, I think, void for uncertainty. He suggested that the claimant might have the option either of taking a sum decided by the Commission to-day or leaving it to the Commission to pay him some other sum at an indefinite future date. I do not know whether that other sum would of necessity be a larger sum; we are not told at what date it would be paid; and we are not indeed clear under the Bill as to the date at which the value payment is to be made. That is a matter which has to be settled by the Commission. I submit that the hon. Member's proposal is too vague. The case with which I am concerned is that of a man with a house purchased at £500, which, when it comes to replacement or reinstatement, cannot be rebuilt at less than £800. If such a house were partially demolished the man would be entitled in the ordinary case to have it rebuilt and completed free


of expense to him. If it were wholly destroyed, he would get only a value payment, but the value payment would probably be in the ordinary case the £500 which the house probably cost him and which probably it was still worth on 31st March of last year. However, it would cost him £800 to get another house like it, and this on the face of it would be a very great burden upon him. There is, of course, the further question to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) referred, and which at some stage must receive consideration, as to the respective positions of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and whether, in the event of the amount not being sufficient, there should be some apportionment of the claim between them.
The object of this Bill is to do substantial justice. I have given the Committee a case which I imagine will be typical of the great majority of cases under this Bill. Would it not be possible to create a formula, something like this, that if the value of a house on 31st March, 1939, was £500 and the cost of replacement was £800, then substantial justice would be done if the value payment could be made at £650? The loss would then be shared between the individual and the State or the War Damage Commission—at any rate that would be quite clearly an improvement on the present position where the individual concerned would only have £500. I would go so far as to say, if we cannot replace and reinstate every building, that even in the case of cost of works payments it might be dealt with on a somewhat similar basis.
Substantial justice would be done if half the difference was paid between the value of the house on 31st March, 1939, and its cost of replacement. In the case of the ordinary individual with a £500 house he would probably spend the £650 he received on building a smaller house, which that sum would enable him to do, whereas the £500 he would at present receive would probably be insufficient. If both parties who have suffered total damage or partial damage cannot be put on the same basis, we have to find some formula which will do substantial justice between them. I agree with those who have spoken, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see it too, that the Clause as it stands is unsatisfac-

tory with this discrimination and distinction. I for one do not think it is justified—at any rate it does not justify the treatment between cost of works cases and value cases. We should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his advisers, to find some better formula, otherwise I am afraid there will be great difficulty in the administration of the Bill in the future.

Mr. Spens: I am not one of those who say that this differentiation is perfect. There is one consideration of great importance which, I think, ought to be borne in mind. A cost of works basis means that the owner of a piece of land is left in absolute uncertainty. All he knows is that at some quite indefinite period in the future, after the war, he is to receive something to do up his property. From a commercial point of view, and from the point of view of those who have put their savings into property, all of which has been damaged, it is a terribly difficult state to be in, because it means that you have x pounds to come to you at some time in the future. In my view there are many people in this country, both commercial and individual owners, who desire certainty at the earliest possible moment. In order to get certainty you must have a yard-stick, and there is no yard-stick whatever for the prices which will prevail after the war. But you have a yard-stick by taking the value at some date, and the date here is the nearest to the commencement of the war. It is perfectly clear that if my house is reduced to a state in which it is most unlikely that it can be repaired, I can then find out pretty accurately what I shall receive in the future, worked out on the 1939 valuation. In that case I can deal with the situation, although I quite agree with the arguments which have been raised pointing out anomalies. However, I do not think the Committee ought to omit that point, because I think it is a very valuable one. I suggest that you should have a yard-stick, and this is the nearest yard-stick which can bring any certainty. Of course it would be terrible if money values altered between now and the post-war period. If anything like this remains in the Bill, the Committee will expect some understanding if there is a radical alteration in the value of money that this matter will be reconsidered.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: On a point of Order. As I understand it we are


now discussing Clause 4, although a certain amount of the discussion took place on Clause 5. Will you, Colonel Clifton Brown, inform me, and the Committee, whether the other Amendments on the Order Paper to Clause 4 will be discussed, and whether some, or all of there, will be called if relevant to the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have to give this ruling at intervals, although it has been given already. I have no wish to stop any reasonable discussion. Now we are discussing the first Amendment, and I propose to give everybody an opportunity of expressing their points of view. A great many of these Amendments will be withdrawn in view of the discussion, but where there are any new points I understand they will be called.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps I may now say a few words, although I have nothing really novel to put forward. I was interested in the suggestions which have been made that my right hon. Friend and the rest of us concerned with this Bill should go away and think again, as if we had not been thinking ever since the subject was mooted. It is the most difficult thing of all to decide how you are to deal with this aspect of damage, but our thoughts are positively night and day on this problem, and will continue to be as they are stimulated from time to time by hon. Members. I hope, however, that they will not think that we put this in the Bill without knowing its ramifications. What the Debate has shown is that while none of the Amendments could possibly stand, no one is prepared to do anything about his own Amendment. A great number of hon. Members think the Clause does not stand. Well, somebody has got to decide something sooner or later. I do not think my right hon. Friend or the Government have ever claimed that this was a logical proposal. I do not think anyone would say that this Bill was frightfully logical, but what we do say is that it is a rough-and-ready way of dealing with very urgent and immediate problems of the near future which none of us can foresee. If we all knew what things would be like after the war, what prices would be, what the possibility of physical reconstruction would be, and if we could see here and now how far town planning was a settled thing, it would, of course,

be very much easier to deal with this Bill. Unfortunately, on a great number of these points we are in a vacuum. We just do not know, and so we have to go along as best we may on what we hope is an equitable and just basis.
My right hon. Friend will consider the various arguments and points which have been put, but I must say that no alternative has been put up by anyone. The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) did, however, suggest an alternative, and I am going to say something about that. He thought that instead of tying these various things down in legislation we should submit these points to the discretion of the Commission. I must say that my impression from the first day's Debate was that the Committee was not quite so unanimous that the Commission should have discretion to do everything. This is a most startling change.

Mr. Woodburn: I think there has been a misunderstanding. At the moment it is firm and binding on the side of what we consider injustice. I am suggesting that, in addition to what you have, there should be a Clause taking power for the Commission to vary on the side of fairness when they see that unfairness exists.

Captain Crookshank: That means that the Commission would in fact be able to override the decision of Parliament on this point. There is one point which I do not think has been in the minds of all hon. Members. As I have listened to the discussion it has rather been pointed at house property, and even then at small house property. Do not let us forget that this covers factories, workshops, warehouses and every kind of property. Some of the arguments which have been put up which may, on the point of small house property, have some attraction, they would be the first to disregard if we were dealing with the other kinds of property because the arguments are not on all fours. We cannot, after the bombing that we have had and may have, hope, with all the King's horses and all the King's men, to replace England as it was on the outbreak of the war in a physical sense, and nobody wants to. That is part of the difficulty that, with hon. Members stressing that we ought to be able to get back the same house as near as maybe to what it was before, it is


neither possible nor necessarily desirable. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) made the criticism that the result of criterion of cost of works or value payments in Clause 5 (1, a) might be that the claimant would not know till after the war what he was going to get. He might know long before the war was over, because there might be no objection to repairs being carried on now.
There are some cases where cost-of-works payment would be necessary because some particular building might have to be repaired in order to carry on the war effort, and in that case the owner would know what he was going to get. If the repairs cannot be carried out during the war I do not see that necessarily the person concerned would be damaged by not knowing what he is going to get for repairs which there is no possibility of carrying out. Surely he could wait for the information. Incidentally I was asked whether the 2½ per cent. would be liable to Income Tax. Of course it is clear income and is liable to tax in the ordinary way.
My hon. Friend suggests that an option should be given—either value payment now or that the claimant should wait till after the war when the Commission could deal with it and might make an alternative suggestion. That seems to assume that there is a probability that an assessment will be made and claimants could get their value payment, but it is not intended that large value payments should be made now because it is not anticipated that they will be able to be assessed. My hon. Friend is running a little ahead, at any rate, of our views in considering the possibility of value payments being made immediately.
There is one other point with regard to Clause 5 which, as it is a detailed matter, it would probably be more convenient to deal with when the time comes. I suppose I have as open a mind as anyone else on the problem and, having heard the arguments, while I recognise that our proposal must in the nature of things have its defects, I think on the whole it holds the field against the alternatives which are put forward. Whether we can think of something else before we have finished with the Bill is another matter, but, as it stands to-day,

the proposal is far better, and deals on a reasonable basis with the problem that we have to face, and does not get us into the really even more serious difficulties which the Amendments would get us.

Major Milner: My hon. Friend's Amendment does not get the right hon. Gentleman into any difficulties. The only objection to it is that it must be on the generous side.

Captain Crookshank: No, there is a great deal more than that.

Major Milner: The difficulty is really created in the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: It is true that it is in the Bill. The Bill makes a difference between value payment and cost of works payment, because that was the only way we could see to make a differentiation between the restoration of a structure—I do not want to be limited to houses—while it was an economic proposition to carry out and the case where it is not an economic proposition. The only way to make a distinction between economic and uneconomic was to make it cost of works payment or value payment. When my hon. Friend says it will be very difficult to know which you are likely to get, I do not think that is the case. I think the great bulk of the cases will fall definitely one way or the other and you will be able to tell what will happen. The border-line cases where it is going to be a point to be decided whether it is worth cost of works or not will be a small minority of the total cases.
Up to now I do not think there has been any difficulty in dealing with somewhere about 90 per cent. of the cases. That is not one of the causes of delay which need be feared. I think that all the alternatives to our proposals fall to the ground. Granted that there are difficulties and anomalies, I think our proposal stands, but any fresh light that is thrown on the problem must be considered, because this is one of the vital points in the Bill, make no mistake about that. It is one of the few solid foundations on which we have been able to build. If that was undermined I do not know where we should end up. Having had this general and interesting discussion, perhaps we may now be allowed to get down to more detail.

Sir I. Albery: I have listened to most of this Debate and have heard with interest the remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary. It appears that there is general agreement in the Committee that the Clause as drafted is not entirely satisfactory. Every Amendment which has been put up by my hon. Friends in different parts of the Committee has been demolished by either the learned Attorney-General, or the Chancellor, or the Financial Secretary. In demolishing them they have had to admit that there are anomalies and I think that that is putting it moderately. My view is that if the Bill is put into operation in its present form there will be real cases of great hardship. On the other hand, there will be many cases of what might be termed unearned increment in which people will derive great benefit for no substantial reason. In regard to value payment, there will be many cases in which the payment will be quite insufficient to meet the mortgage obligations. On the other hand, there will be property which presumably will be reinstated at the cost of the Fund at a much higher building cost than is yet contemplated, at a time when there will probably be some shortage of housing property, and the property when reinstated will probably, be worth much more by comparison than it was before.
Several of my hon. Friends who usually have good judgment in these matters have put up suggestions, and none of them apparently have been good enough and have been turned down. Therefore, I have not much hope that if I make a suggestion it will meet with any better response. I will, nevertheless, make one in rather loose terms. I suggest that it would be advisable, if we are to stick to the 1939 value basis, that there should be added to it some proviso that if an owner rebuilds he can get a specified percentage over and above the 1939 value. I will not suggest what it should be; it might be 10 or 20 per cent., but that is a matter for the experts. That would enable the owner to rebuild, and provided it was not against the public interest it would be to some extent a national service. That percentage could be made on such a basis that he would get real and adequate compensation but no undue advantage. One of the advantages of having a fixed percentage on the 1939 valuation would be

that all the cases could be dealt with generally and there would not be a lot of individual cases to consider.
Turning to the other aspect of the question, certain properties are to be completely reinstated at the cost of the Fund and on that account are to have a greater value afterwards than they would have. In that case, I do not see why the owners should not make some contribution towards that increased value. I suggest that it would be equitable that some percentage, say 10 per cent., of the cost of restoring the property should be paid. The question would arise where that money was to come from. Possibly the most difficult cases would be houses, and I therefore suggest that the percentage could be added to the mortgages. The houses would be reinstated and would command a higher value than before, and could, therefore, bear some percentage of extra mortgage. These are rough-and-ready suggestions, but I do not see why something of that kind cannot be entertained for it would minimise some of the difficulties that are likely to arise with the Clause as it stands.

Sir Harold Webbe: It may be refreshing to my right hon. Friend to hear a word from one who does not wish to challenge the fundamental principle of the value payment. It seems to me that the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend for this differentiation to meet particular cases were answerable. Quite clearly the universal adoption of the cost of works payment would mean that the Fund, contributed largely by the body of property owners and the State, might well be applied in a manner which would be unfair and unreasonable. The Committee is in great difficulty in considering this matter because the criterion which determines whether a cost of works payment or a value payment is to be made is provided in Clause 5, which we have not yet been able to discuss. If my interpretation of that criterion is correct, a great many of the cases for which our sympathy has been invited will prove, under the formula in Clause 5, to be cases of cost of works payment and not for value payment at all. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss this Clause without reference to Clause 5. I find myself in a difficulty, which has not been removed by the Financial Secretary, on the point


which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). The criterion set out in Clause 5, by which is determined whether a cost of works or a value payment is to be made, can only be operated after the war. In other words, the actual decision whether a cost of works or a value payment is to be made cannot be determined until after the war. So that the argument in support of the value payment which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), that you have certainty at an early stage, does not apply.

Mr. Spens: I appreciate that, but I have an Amendment down in order to get certainty, and I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend that the Commission ought to give decisions as soon as possible so that there can be certainty.

Sir H. Webbe: My difficulty is that I cannot see how the criterion in Clause 5 can be applied until after the war. The Clause says that there will be a value payment in cases where the cost of making good the damage—cost on what basis?—on pre-war basis? on prices at the time of the damage, or on post-war prices?—would be more than a certain difference. At the time the damage is done, when there has to be a determination whether it is a value-payment case or not, who can say what the cost of works will be when that work is done, if it has to be done? It has to be compared with the value after the execution of the work, that is, a postwar value, and the value of the cleared site, against a post-war value. How can a determination be made when the factors upon which the judgment is to be based will be post-war values? That difficulty seems to be made stronger—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened to the hon. Member for some time, but I cannot help feeling that the argument which he is using ought to be raised on Clause 5 and not now. I allowed the hon. Member to ask a question, but I do not think we ought to have a discussion.

Sir H. Webbe: In that case, I will reserve the remarks which I have to make until we come to Clause 5, when I want to raise a further point in connection with this argument.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Douglas: No, Sir, I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. The Chancellor has not given us much encouragement for a settlement of this question, and the arguments in favour of the Amendment have not been met. The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have used arguments, which apply equally to the cost-of-works payment, with which the Chancellor is quite content. If a property is four-fifths damaged, it is likely that a cost-of-works payment will be made, although the payment will be greater than the value of the damage. The Chancellor also said that he proposes to give compensation in cases where it would be uneconomic to rebuild. I have adopted the measure of depreciation which the Chancellor himself is prepared to accept in the case of cost-of-works payment, and my Amendment limits the amount of value payments to the maximum amount of cost-of-works payment. Not a penny more can possibly be given in that way than might be given under the most favourable circumstances in respect of cost-of-works payments. The object of the Amendment is to remove the very serious anomaly which now exists, and which will cause a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the country, especially between people in the same street, one whose house is only partially demolished and is able to get a practically new house built for him, and another whose house is completely demolished and who gets a payment which is in no way related to the cost of replacing the house. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to reconsider this matter, and I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir I. Albery: Before you put the Amendment, Colonel Clifton Brown, may I ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I believe that we all have the same object in view. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, who is anxious to see a way of narrowing the discrepancy and is anxious to do so, would be able to give an assurance that, if any suitable proposal is brought to his notice with that end in view, between now and the Report stage, he will give it favourable consideration?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly. That is the difficulty, and I am anxious to hear of such suggestions. A month has gone by since the Bill was given a Second Reading, and those of us who have spent a tremendous amount of time upon this point have been anxious to see whether there were any practicable alternatives of which we had not thought. I sympathise entirely with the case that has been made out, but I am left in the position in which I was when considering the terms of the Bill. I was strengthened in the view which I took by the fact that the matter had also been examined by a committee under an expert who is now a Judge of the High Court. He came definitely to the same conclusion as myself. He saw no other way than this. I listened with interest to the Debate for any suggestion to improve the position. My hon. Friends can judge as well as I can whether any other practicable proposal has been made in the course of the Debate, but if, between now and the Report stage, any hon. Member can suggest anything of a reasonable and practical character I shall be only too glad to consider it. That is our attitude towards the whole proposal.
My judgment is that we shall have to rely on the proposals in the Bill and upon the March, 1939, figure. It is true that it might be maintained that great injustice may be occasioned by the proposals of the Bill if there is a complete change in money values after the war. That is the real criticism of the proposals, and that is where hardship and uncertainty might come about. My answer is that if there is a great change of that kind the proposals will obviously have to be examined at that time. That is the proper and sensible way to deal with the difficulty. We must have some sort of standard in the Bill, and we have chosen the only one which we can put down as reasonable at all. At the same time to those who have spent a long time on this matter it was most interesting to hear what was said in the course of the Debate.
In conclusion, I will repeat that if there is a complete change in the value of money, the matter must be re-examined. I am sure that anybody who occupied this position at that time would review the matter, in those circumstances. I am not giving an undertaking which will not be carried out by any successor of mine. Certainly, I would review the matter.

Only in that event will the March, 1939, figure be obviously unfair. If there should be no such change, the March, 1939, standard will prove to be the least objectionable of all the proposals which can be made. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will be comforted by those observations of mine. They really meet the substantial objections to the Government's proposals, though, as I say, I shall be only too glad to consider any new proposals designed to improve the situation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 17 to 20, and to insert:
Provided that in any case in which such value as aforesaid cannot readily be ascertained in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, such value shall be ascertained in accordance with such principles as the Treasury may from tune to time by regulations prescribe.
It has already been said in the course of the proceedings in the Committee to-day that the proviso at the end of Sub-section (5) was intended only to give discretion to the Treasury in regard to the value of different houses in special circumstances; in other words, where the basis laid down in the earlier part of Sub-section (5) could not apply. That is what my Amendment is intended to do, and not to give power to the Treasury to undo anything which we have done during the last few hours. It is only in special cases where the basis which we had laid down cannot be applied that they must have a means of varying the basis of valuation.

The Attorney-General: When I first saw this Amendment on the Paper I was not quite sure what my hon. and learned Friend had in mind. I think there might he a class of hereditament the value of which it might be possible to ascertain but in regard to which there were exceptional circumstances which made it necessary to invoke this proviso or the proviso in the Bill. I do not think that the words of our proviso could reasonably be interpreted as referring to the class which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind; the words are restricted to classes specified in the Regulations. Now that I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's point, namely, that the proviso might be rather wide, I am content that it should be looked into to see whether the proviso could be narrowed so as to give the power which everybody wants.

Mr. E. Evans: I would like to say a word or two because the Amendment which I have is designed to achieve the same object as the hon. and learned Member. The Financial Secretary satisfied me, and his assurance has been borne out by the Attorney-General, so that I do not wish to press the matter any further.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I have put down an Amendment and the object is concerned with the principles of valuation. After all, those principles are very old-established principles laid down by surveyors, architects and valuers, and it is important that they should not be overridden more than they need be. It, as I understand, what is meant by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is accepted in principle, I think it more or less covers our suggestion made later on about the principles of valuation. What I did wish to bring to the notice of hon. Members was that though there may be in the War Damage Bill certain principles which differ from ordinary valuation principles, it is very important that the latter, which have been established over many years, should be kept, especially in rural and country districts. I should not like anything in this Clause to override those principles any more than is necessary, and I hope that in any proviso introduced they will not be interfered with.

Sir H. Webbe: I also have put down an Amendment to this Clause to much the same effect, but I added my name to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford because it seemed to me to limit adequately the rather wide proviso which appeared under the Bill. In view, however, of the assurances which have been given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I shall not seek to move the Amendment.

Mr. Spens: That is one of the matters on which the Treasury will give directions to the Commission, and, having regard to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, so far as I am concerned I am quite satisfied that direction should be given that the special basis of valuation should only be employed in the particular cases to which they have referred. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out from the beginning to "otherwise," in line 32, and to insert "emergency powers."
This is the first of five Amendments of a similar nature. In several provisos in the Bill reference is made to the Regulations under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, but it is important that all the references to that Act should be in the same terms. This Amendment proposes to remove all reference here and merely to use the words "emergency powers," and then in the interpretation, Clause 68, will come a definition of the Defence Regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at end, to add:
(7) The Commission shall have power at their discretion—

(a) where the obligations imposed by statutory authority for the safeguarding of buildings have not been fulfilled, to pay to the claimant such lesser compensation as seems to them equitable, and to apportion as seems to them equitable the reduced compensation amongst those entitled to share therein;
(b) to pay expenses reasonably incurred in limiting or lessening damage caused by a fire."

I had certain Amendments down myself on the same sort of subject, asking for proof of precautions against damage through enemy action, and I must agree that when I looked at this Amendment my own seemed rather crude. At the same time they do enshrine a very important principle, and the Committee will note that in the present Amendment reference is made to the obligations imposed by statutory authority. On the Second Reading very little, if anything, was said on the subject of damage by fire or of the precautions that ought to be taken. The Committee will agree that since that time—19th December—some of the greatest fire disasters this country has ever suffered have taken place. I have had a great deal of information, as other hon. Members no doubt have, to the effect that something like 90 per cent. of the damage from enemy action has been


caused by fire. I have also had a good deal of proof and support for the contention that if reasonable precautions had been taken, that enormous injury running into fifties of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of pounds could have been largely reduced.
That being so I feel very strongly that as all this money is to be paid out of the pockets of property owners and taxpayers, the least we can do is to introduce somewhere in the Bill the principle that the citizen must do more than he has done in the past to protect, not only his own property, but also what in effect is the property of the State, seeing that the State is now taking the responsibility of paying for the enormous damage that has been clone. I confess that the spectacle of perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds of State money being wrangled over by claimants and their representatives is sordid indeed, and the least we can do is to ask for the most rigid safeguards and place them in the hands of the War Damage Commission to see that the State and its purse are adequately protected. I am very likely to be told that the War Damage Commission will be told by the Treasury by regulations and otherwise and will be given directions to see that they are adequately protected, and the Treasury has a good capacity for looking after itself.
At the same time I cannot help feeling that we ought to go rather further and define the safeguard and see that the State money is safeguarded. It is apt to be forgotten that the social services of this country are paid for by taxpayers' money, and every pound that is unnecessarily paid out for war damage is a pound less for the thing which every Member of this House wants to see promoted. That is a very important matter. There cannot be much doubt from the evidence that has come to me, and I am sure to other people—and the Press has been very clear in ma king accusations that insufficient care has been taken—that it would be true to say that in some instances there has been deliberate hesitation about making use of precautions. I have often heard it described as calculated carelessness. If more trouble had been taken there would have been a great deal less damage.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing fire precautions as a

whole, but he must confine himself to the provisions of the Bill.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I apologise for getting away from what I was discussing. The main point I want to impress upon the Committee is that unless the obligations laid down by the State are carried into effect for safeguarding buildings compensation should be withheld if necessary and at least only part of it provided. To sum up in one short sentence, I want to introduce the principle that contributory negligence shall not result in money being paid by the Treasury to the owners of property.

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid everyone will sympathise with many of the contentions which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised this afternoon. It is deplorable that a great deal of damage has been done through the neglect or carelessness of others, and I can understand his anxiety to prevent, if he can, that course being profitable to anybody. He has put an Amendment on the Paper, and I know that he himself says that he has put it down for the purpose of raising a discussion, and he would not press for such proposals being inserted in the Bill. If one looks at the Amendment it places an almost impossible task upon the Commission. It would obviously be almost impossible for the Commission to decide in the first place whether there had been any such neglect as my hon. and gallant Friend indicates, and secondly, the measure of the penalty that should be enforced. It would be a very difficult matter indeed.
There is another aspect. As we know there is, in connection with many properties, a variety of interested parties such as mortgagees, landlords, tenants, ground landlords and so on, the Commission would have an almost unbearable task. Not only would they have to deal with the property, but they would have to deal with the matter in such a way as not to operate harshly against certain interests in the property. It may be that some people might fail in their duty in this respect, and it is unfair that other people interested in the property should be penalised on that account. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to put into practice. One must bear in mind, too, the position of the courts. At the moment, if a person commits an offence there is a cer-


tain remedy and he can be punished. Suppose, in addition to that punishment, some eminent advocate like my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is able to go to court on behalf of the accused person and say "Be careful before you punish this man. Remember what may happen. Not only may he be fined but he may be mulcted by being required to give up compensation to the value of £1,000. I would ask the court to hesitate very much before convicting my client, because he may be ruined." By that means you are making it very difficult for the court to carry out its duty, but I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and consider whether there is any way out.
There is a good deal to be said for taking the line that anybody who does not do his duty ought to be dealt with under the law of the land and that adequate penalties ought to be imposed upon him by that means, so that there is no complication of the matter by some additional procedure under the War Damage Bill. I will see whether there is a way of helping in this matter, because I know that many hon. Members feel very much as my hon. Friend does. There are practical difficulties, and there is a great deal to be said for the argument that if people behave in this way they should be dealt with under the law as it stands, and an appropriate penalty should be imposed. On the other hand, it is only reasonable that we should take proper precautions; in the case of fire policies, there is a provision that reasonable precautions must be taken. But the practical difficulties of doing anything of this kind would have to be considered. I will have regard to what my hon. Friend has said on this matter.

Mr. Selley: Is there not danger that the person responsible, the tenant, might escape, and the owner, who is perfectly innocent, might have the penalty imposed upon him? Surely, the penalty should be imposed upon the tenant, who is the person responsible for the property.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: My right hon. Friend has not replied to paragraph (b) of the Amendment, which reads:
To pay expenses reasonably incurred in limiting or lessening damage caused by a fire.

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that question.

Mr. David Adams: I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment, but I recognise, as the Chancellor has done, that in its present form it is impracticable. It places upon the Commission new obligations and duties not only with regard to the assessment of the penalty to be imposed, but with regard to determining how the imposition should be distributed. That is why the Chancellor has promised to consider the matter and ascertain whether it is possible to insert some provision which will obtain the same result in another way. Probably many hon. Members are aware that in the recent fires in London certain very scandalous things occurred, particularly in the great warehouses in and about Bermondsey. These were of a very valuable character, containing all sorts of goods that are essential to the war effort.
I am advised by wardens in the area that they made repeated requests to the owners of the warehouses to leave with the wardens the keys of those warehouses, so that entry could be made in case of fire. These requests were refused. The result was that when the fires came the wardens endeavoured, not having keys, to break in the very heavy and strongly built—in some cases steel—doors in order to get entrance to put out the fires. They were in every case quite unsuccessful, with the result that many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of leather, edible goods, and so on, on Government account and Government property, were entirely lost. After the fires were ultimately extinguished we had the spectacle in one part of the area of warehouses entirely gone, in some cases with only the four walls left standing, and in another part working-class houses, to which access had been easily available, saved. When I made full inquiries as to what the owners of the warehouses thought on the matter, I was advised that apparently they preferred to receive the compensation which would naturally ensue to them for the loss they had sustained, rather than risk the little pilferings which might occur in providing access to their property. Cases of this sort may occur again and again, and therefore the Chancellor ought to make some provision for the punishment of those who neglect the


interest of themselves, of their clients and of the community in this matter.

Mr. Denman: I apologise to the Chancellor for not being present to move this Amendment in person. I had regard to all the arguments he had produced and recognised with great force that there is one consideration in favour of some such provision as this. It will not, in fact, be frequently used. The Commission will not often, if this provision is passed, have occasion to make use of it, but the fact that they are able to pay lesser compensation, which would be widely advertised and generally known, should be a very powerful deterrent in the case of people disregarding statutory obligations. It is to produce such deterrent effect that I hope that some provision of this kind will be made.

Mr. Graham White: Can the hon. Member give an indication as to the number of cases in which persons who have obligations under other legislation would be the same people who would have obligations under this Bill? It seems to me that the Amendment imposes on the Commission something which is quite impossible for them to administer.

Mr. Denman: I am afraid I do not understand the latter point of the hon. Member. I do not think that this imposes any obligation on an occupier or owner that is not imposed by other Statutes. It is only where the occupier or owner has not fulfilled obligations and the fact comes to the attention of the Commission that a provision of this kind could operate. I should not anticipate that the Commission would hunt about to discover whether in fact there had been neglect. It would be brought to their attention by some notorious fact, and it would be for them to consider whether they should put it in operation. The real effect would be that it would be a deterrent and frighten people to do what the law compels them to do.

Mr. Benson: I do not see how this Clause would operate. The hon. Member refers to occupier or owner. At present the obligation is on the occupier. Why should a penalty on the owner frighten the occupier?

Mr. Denman: The claimant is the person who would get a reduced figure,

and the distribution of that reduced figure would be in accordance with the decision of the Commission. However, we ought not to occupy time on a matter to which the Chancellor has stated he will give full consideration.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say to the Chancellor that the principle at the back of my mind is a very old and a very deterrent one, namely, pour encourager les autres.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Cases in which payments of costs of works and value payments respectively are to be made.)

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out from "interest" to "that" in line 24.
The point is a very short one. Under the Clause as drafted it appears that the Commission has power to take away the legal rights of some of the parties who are interested in a property because other parties who are interested in it have certain views. That appears to be a highly unjust provision. There is no means of any appeal, as far as I can see, from the decision of the Commission nor any provision for a hearing of the parties interested.

The Attorney-General: I think one's view of the Amendment depends to a considerable extent on one's view of the Commission and the possibility of its exercising fairly and equitably the powers entrusted to it under the Bill. Obviously the Bill proceeds on the basis that the Commission can be so trusted. This deals with a case in which the appropriate payment would, apart from this provision, be payment of cost of works and those concerned desire that, instead of that being done, they should get a money payment. The Subsection provides, first of all, that that may happen if it is the wish of the owners of the proprietary interest and of any mortgagee. If the Subsection stopped there, of course the power would only be exercised if there was unanimity. The words that the hon. Member wants to leave out are put in so as to prevent some individual, possibly a tenant low down in the scale, or someone who has a very


small proprietary interest, having a nuisance value given to him by the fact that he could obstruct what others who ought to have their wishes carried out want to have done. It is unreasonable that a small proprietary interest should be able to prevent substantial interests having their views carried out. As my hon. Friend pointed out this is a case prima facie where people are entitled to say "cost of works," and it would only be in exceptional circumstances, in a case where the Commission were satisfied that an injustice would be done, that they would exercise their powers under these words. I think that there would be greater evils if the Amendment were carried and if a man were given a nuisance value and were able to say that he would only agree if he were given a percentage of the value payment. That would be highly undesirable, and it is better that the Commission should have the power to deal with that class of objector.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a case to a large extent against leaving out the words, but I think that the words are much too wide.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I did not make clear what is clear if one studies the words. "Those persons" in the words proposed to be left out mean either owners or mortgagees. They do not bring in any new class. The only effect of the words proposed to be left out is to prevent the necessity of unanimity among all those interested in the property.

Mr. Silkin: It depends on the emphasis which is put on the words "those persons". With a certain emphasis a lot of other persons who are not mentioned might be brought in. I suggest, therefore, that the provision should be made clear so that it cannot be read in a way which is not intended. If it is limited to the people mentioned by the Attorney-General, well and good, but it should be looked at again to see that there is no ambiguity.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'persons,' in line 22, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "persons" to insert

(including any local authority having power to control the development of, or means of access to and from, the hereditament).
In this part of the Bill the onus is put on the Commission to consult certain persons, and I want to know whether "persons" will include local authorities. It may be said that a local authority is not the owner of a property or a mortgagee, but this House has placed on local authorities certain obligations with regard to property, and I want to know whether it will be possible for them, in the execution of their duty under town planning or ribbon development, to have an opportunity of appearing and expressing their views.

Major Milner: The hon. Gentleman is probably moving the Amendment on behalf of the County Councils' Association. I have the authority of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents some 15,000,000 people, to say that they support it. They hope that it will be accepted, and they regard it as essential that the local authorities should be consulted.

Sir K. Wood: I will, in the course of the proceedings, provide that the local authorities shall be able to make representations direct to the Commission, and that the Commission should, in certain cases, consult the local authorities. By that means, the local authorities will have full opportunity of putting their case before the Commission. That is the proper way to do it, as, I think, the deputation from the corporations agreed. It would not be right for the local authorities to make representations to the Treasury, because the Treasury would have to consult the respective Departments, and it is to those Departments that the local authorities should make their representations. In that way, I think my hon. Friend will obtain what he desires. Before an Order is made, or any steps are taken under this provision, the local authorities will be enabled, under a new Clause which I or one of my hon. Friends will move, to provide for safeguards which I have just mentioned.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out "war damage to," and to insert "the value of."
Here we are dealing with a case which would normally be a value case but in which the Commission is empowered to make a cost-of-works payment, if it seems to be expedient, in relation to damage to another house. For example, it might be wiser to make a cost-of-works payment if, as a result, you save a party wall, and when, if you had made a value payment, the next house might have been put at some risk. We want to make it clear that the Commission may make a cost-of-works payment where the rebuilding of damaged property, not worth while in itself, is worth doing in relation to another property.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, at the end, to add:
(c) in any case in which a local authority is the owner of a proprietary interest in land which has sustained war damage, the Commission shall make in respect of the damage either a payment of cost of works or a value payment as the local authority in their absolute discretion may request.
The decision as to the method of payment is left to the Commission, but the local authorities think that in their case the decision should be left with them, because of their local knowledge. Local authorities may have a damaged building which is required for a certain purpose, and it may be possible that the Commission would not be conversant with the type of building required. Consequently, we are asking that the local authority should have the right to say what type of building should be put up.

Sir H. Williams: I am in the exalted position of being an alderman of a county council, but that is no reason why I should support a proposal to give to a local authority discretion to say in what way they should be compensated. I think that there is a lot to be said for extending this Amendment to every person and not only to a county council.

Sir K. Wood: As the Committee knows, I have been seeking solutions, but this can scarcely be one of the proposals for solving the difficulty. It would indeed be a happy state of affairs if people could decide for themselves whether they

should be given a value payment or a cost of works payment. Certainly this Amendment is distinguished by its audacity. Apart from that I cannot commend it to the Committee.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of the fact that the Amendment does not seem to receive much support, I do not know that it is much use on this occasion to try and get much further with it. For all that, it has great merits. If a building is damaged it is left to the discretion of the Commission to say whether a value payment or a cost of repairs payment is to be made, but the local authority may find that they are compelled to repair the building which they would prefer to put up in a different manner, and that if they had a value payment they could utilise it for the purpose of replacing the building in a more suitable and modern form. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silkin: This Clause provides machinery whereby the Commission may in their own discretion, if certain conditions are fulfilled, give a cost of works payment instead of a value payment. Having regard to the long discussion, it occurred to me that the Chancellor might consider whether, in cases where a substantial injustice would be done by the payment of a value payment, the Commission should have discretion to give a cost of works payment. It is a small contribution to the problem which we all have in mind.

Sir H. Webbe: On the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," may I say a word on Sub-section (1, a). This Clause is the basis on which the Commission can decide whether a cost of works or a value payment is appropriate. That is clearly of great importance to the Bill as a whole and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he is satisfied that the drafting of this particular paragraph is perfectly clear and without doubt. I am concerned particularly with the words in lines 5, 6 and 7 in which, I am told by lawyers who have experience in these matters, there is a possible opening for doubt as to the interpre-


tation of the word "clear." The Commission has to ascertain for the purpose of their decision the value of the site cleared of any buildings or works and with the damage so far as it affects the site not made good. The use of the word "clear" in a Bill in which the idea of clearance of sites so often occurs does I think cause some little difficulty, and I am assuming that the meaning of these words is that the Commission are to think of the site as being clear of any encumbrance of any kind and base their valuation on that assumption. But they are also instructed to remember that the damage, so far as it affects the site, has not been made good. Here again I believe there is some doubt as to what exactly is meant by damage so far as the site is concerned.

Sir K. Wood: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that as this is a matter which is of interest only to the draftsmen a good deal of time could be saved if he would come to me privately.

Sir H. Webbe: I accept very gratefully the Chancellor's offer.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I wish to raise a point with reference to Sub-section (2, a) in regard to which I think an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of great assistance. Several of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment on this point which has not been called, and, while it may not be possible to have any such words in the Bill, I think it is of very great importance that it should be made clear authoritatively that, where it is provided that a decision as to the site not being rebuilt upon has to be made by the Commission, the town planning authority should in all cases be one of the parties whose views have to be taken into account by the Commission.

The Chairman: That matter has been dealt with on another Clause.

Mr. Bellenger: The Chancellor cut short my hon. Friend opposite in his speech, and it is all right if we are really going to have an opportunity later of elucidating matters which are very intricate and which we cannot at the moment understand and which, with the good-will of the House, we are glossing over at this stage. If we are to have an opportunity of rectifying these matters on the Report

stage, we shall of course accept the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but he must understand that the point put by my hon. Friend opposite is one which with the best will in the world we cannot understand at the present moment. We are only concerned, and I believe the Chancellor himself is concerned, with obtaining a fair deal for the generality of householders, and as long as the Chancellor will give us every opportunity of doing that at every stage we are quite prepared to be cut short in our arguments just now.

Sir K. Wood: I would like to make it perfectly clear that I interrupted my right hon. Friend only because he was raising a drafting point. We have already given many hours to the principles of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and we have explained that in effect, to the best of our knowledge and advice, the matter has been carried out, and may I be forgiven if I say that he ought to accept that undertaking and allow us to proceed?

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Additional payments in respect of temporary works.)

Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, after "executed," to insert "for clearing the site and."
This Amendment raises a very small point. I shall be quite satisfied if a statement can be made to the effect that the position is covered, but if not, I shall be glad if the Amendment can be inserted.

Sir H. Williams: I previously raised the question of where the site has been cleared by someone who is not the owner. When I walked down Victoria Street this morning I passed a number of Pioneers shovelling bricks into a lorry. I was glad to see they were using spades to-day as yesterday they were doing it by hand. If members of His Majesty's Army clear the site, the owner is better off than if he had to clear it himself. Where it is considered necessary in the public interest, a lot of this site clearing has been done at public expense. In Victoria Street it has been necessary to do this, but in cases where property—

The Chairman: I do not think that that point arises on this Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: The whole question is whether this has to be calculated in the cost of clearing the site, and the Amendment relates to that.

The Chairman: But not to whom it is cleared by.

Sir H. Williams: If the Amendment goes into the Bill, the cost of clearing the site becomes a charge which the War Damage Commission has to pay, and therefore, I presume, later on the War Office will have a claim against the War Damage Commission, or may have, because the site has been cleared at somebody else's expense. I am trying to find out whether, where the expense is a public charge, it is to be different from the case of the owner who has to clear his own site, because that is likely to create a serious situation. This point must be cleared up, otherwise there will be great difficulty as between owners of property. The matter is one of real substance. The amount at stake in some cases will be as much as £2,000 or £3,000.

The Chairman: I will not stop the hon. Member, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer from replying, on the understanding that this matter is not raised where it should have been raised, namely, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

Captain Crookshank: We will clear it up now because it raises quite a different issue from that of the Amendment. As far as the Amendment is concerned, I am advised that as the Clause stands at present it is unnecessary.

Mr. Spens: In those circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas: There is a point that I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider relating to payments in respect of temporary work. In a large number of cases temporary works are carried out by local authorities. They have a statutory obligation in certain cases to execute temporary work upon houses in order to enable occupants to get back into them as quickly as possible. The local

authorities are unable to recoup themselves for the cost of carrying out temporary work. Under Clause 6 that right cannot be claimed unless there is a payment to be made in respect of cost of works or value. If no payment is made in respect of these things the local authority will not be able to recoup itself for expense thus incurred. This is of great importance to local authorities, who have proceeded hitherto upon a special enactment which gives them the right to recover from the owner of property, by means of a charge on property, the cost of carrying out the works. The charge is limited, and it is still further limited by preventing any charge being paid which does not exceed £5 in value. I know in the case of a certain council that in respect of some 10,000 houses, the great majority will fall under the £5 limit, but the local authority will be entirely deprived of the right it has hitherto had to recoup the expense. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is extremely unfair to take away in this connection the statutory rights already given to the local authority.

Sir K. Wood: I will examine that matter with pleasure.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the private owner who has carried out the temporary repairs himself and has not gone to the local authority be reimbursed when the time comes under the Clause?

Sir K. Wood: I am going into the question of small claimants. I have already discussed it with the municipal corporations and they have made further representations, and this is one of the matters which I shall take into account.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Determination of questions as to works and value.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out from "hereditament," to "to," in line 17, and to insert
at the instance of any party interested.
The purpose of my Amendment is to widen the appeal from the narrow rights which are provided under the Clause as the Bill now stands. At present appeal is limited to one point and that is as to the


value payments and it could only be at the instance of the claimant. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable any person interested to appeal to the referee. As I had occasion to say on an earlier Clause some persons will be more interested in payment than the claimant himself and any person so interested should have the right of appeal to the referee. Moreover, it should not only be a question of value payment but a question of value generally—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the under-mentioned areas, namely:—

(1) The City and County of the City of Exeter,
(2) the County Borough of Ipswich,
(3) the Borough of Aldeburgh,
(4) the Borough of Henley-on-Thames,
(5) the Borough of Kettering,
(6) the Borough of Ossett,
(7) the Borough of Tewkesbury,
(8) the Urban District of Bude-Stratton,

copies of which were presented to this House on 21st January, be approved"—[Mr. Peake.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]